American Airlines officials say a plane made an emergency landing at Pensacola International Airport due to “a strong odor” in the cabin Thursday, July 3.
American Airlines Flight 386 was en route from Jacksonville International Airport to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport when the incident occurred.
As a precaution, the MD-80 was diverted to Pensacola International Airport. The aircraft landed without incident and all 115 passengers and 5 crewsmembers are safe, according to American Airlines spokesperson Paul Flanigan. He said another jet was available to bring the passengers to Dallas with an expected arrival at 11:25 p.m.
Source: http://fox10tv.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
Thursday, July 03, 2014
Iron Mountain, Michigan: Military planes will fly over parade route
For the second year in a row, there’s a special addition to the 4th of July parade in Iron Mountain. Three antique military planes will do a flyover shortly before the parade begins.
The lead plane is a Pilatus P-3, a 1950s plane from Switzerland. The others are a Yak-52, a Soviet aircraft used to train pilots in the 1980s, and a T-6 Texan, an American plane that Army Air Corps and Navy pilots trained on in World War II. The T-6 is the plane pictured here.
The flyover should take place at about 9:15 a.m. Central time.
Source: http://abc10up.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
The lead plane is a Pilatus P-3, a 1950s plane from Switzerland. The others are a Yak-52, a Soviet aircraft used to train pilots in the 1980s, and a T-6 Texan, an American plane that Army Air Corps and Navy pilots trained on in World War II. The T-6 is the plane pictured here.
The flyover should take place at about 9:15 a.m. Central time.
Source: http://abc10up.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
F-35 Opponents File Lawsuit To Block Jet From Burlington International Airport (KBTV), Vermont
Opponents of the plan by the Air Force to base F-35 fighter planes at Vermont's Burlington International Airport have filed a lawsuit asking a federal district court to overturn the decision.
A lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Burlington challenges the decision by the Secretary of the Air Force to base up to 18 of the stealth F-35 fighter jets at the Vermont Air National Guard base at Burlington International Airport.
The F-35 opponents announced Wednesday that the lawsuit had been filed. Bristol Attorney James Dumont represents the seven individuals and the Stop the F-35 Coalition who filed the complaint. “This is a lawsuit that challenges the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement that the Air Force conducted. The governing regulations require that certain minimum standards be met. Those standards were not met in the EIS and that’s why the lawsuit was filed.”
The plaintiffs claim the decision to base the jets in Burlington failed to adequately address mitigation, address conflicts with state and local laws and address socioeconomic impacts. The suit also claims the Air Force failed to identify and evaluate harm to historic properties, consider a no-action alternative, consider catastrophic impacts of exposure to toxic particulates and fumes, and provide public notice of the adoption of the mitigation report. The suit claims that all are required by National Environmental Policy Act. It also claims siting the F-35 in Burlington violates the National Historic Preservation Act. Attorney Dumont says every count is critical and believes the Air Force must abandon the jet. “The Department of Defense is never going to say sorry we made a mistake, we’re abandoning the program. But the incredible cost, unbelievable cost, of the F-35 and its incredible unreliability, the writing’s on the wall. They can’t go forward. They’re going to have to phase it out. Whether Burlington is on the list that has a few of the jets, or isn’t, is what this lawsuit is really going to determine in my opinion.”
Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation president Frank Cioffi supports the Air Force decision to bring the F-35's to Burlington. “There’s nothing new in their allegations here. They’re just taking another legal avenue to try to stall and delay the process and tie the process up in the legal system. What they’re attempting to do, their lawyer’s attempting to do, is delay the process. The basing is several years away anyway. So I would think that the legal challenge here will play itself out in the courts prior to any of the final physical basing of the aircraft. The issues they’ve raised have been totally addressed by the Air Force and by the Vermont Air National Guard all the way through the process.”
Cioffi notes that NEPA — the National Environmental Policy Act — that the lawsuit is based on is part of the federal permitting process, so the lawsuit is the proper avenue for opponents to mount their expected challenge. “The opponents also challenged the project in Vermont’s environmental courts. First they tried to get the project to fall under our state’s land use law called Act 250. They challenged at the administrative level. They lost there. They challenged at the Environmental Court level in Vermont. They lost there. And now they’re appealing to the Vermont Supreme Court and we’re confident that they’re going to lose there. So all they’re attempting to do is to use every opportunity in the legal process to stall, delay and drag the project out. The Air Force has nothing to hide. The Vermont Air Guard has nothing to hide. We’re very confident that we’ll prevail.”
The government has 60 days to respond to the lawsuit.
Calls to the Vermont National Guard were not returned in time for broadcast.
Story, audio and photo: http://wamc.org
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
A lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Burlington challenges the decision by the Secretary of the Air Force to base up to 18 of the stealth F-35 fighter jets at the Vermont Air National Guard base at Burlington International Airport.
The F-35 opponents announced Wednesday that the lawsuit had been filed. Bristol Attorney James Dumont represents the seven individuals and the Stop the F-35 Coalition who filed the complaint. “This is a lawsuit that challenges the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement that the Air Force conducted. The governing regulations require that certain minimum standards be met. Those standards were not met in the EIS and that’s why the lawsuit was filed.”
The plaintiffs claim the decision to base the jets in Burlington failed to adequately address mitigation, address conflicts with state and local laws and address socioeconomic impacts. The suit also claims the Air Force failed to identify and evaluate harm to historic properties, consider a no-action alternative, consider catastrophic impacts of exposure to toxic particulates and fumes, and provide public notice of the adoption of the mitigation report. The suit claims that all are required by National Environmental Policy Act. It also claims siting the F-35 in Burlington violates the National Historic Preservation Act. Attorney Dumont says every count is critical and believes the Air Force must abandon the jet. “The Department of Defense is never going to say sorry we made a mistake, we’re abandoning the program. But the incredible cost, unbelievable cost, of the F-35 and its incredible unreliability, the writing’s on the wall. They can’t go forward. They’re going to have to phase it out. Whether Burlington is on the list that has a few of the jets, or isn’t, is what this lawsuit is really going to determine in my opinion.”
Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation president Frank Cioffi supports the Air Force decision to bring the F-35's to Burlington. “There’s nothing new in their allegations here. They’re just taking another legal avenue to try to stall and delay the process and tie the process up in the legal system. What they’re attempting to do, their lawyer’s attempting to do, is delay the process. The basing is several years away anyway. So I would think that the legal challenge here will play itself out in the courts prior to any of the final physical basing of the aircraft. The issues they’ve raised have been totally addressed by the Air Force and by the Vermont Air National Guard all the way through the process.”
Cioffi notes that NEPA — the National Environmental Policy Act — that the lawsuit is based on is part of the federal permitting process, so the lawsuit is the proper avenue for opponents to mount their expected challenge. “The opponents also challenged the project in Vermont’s environmental courts. First they tried to get the project to fall under our state’s land use law called Act 250. They challenged at the administrative level. They lost there. They challenged at the Environmental Court level in Vermont. They lost there. And now they’re appealing to the Vermont Supreme Court and we’re confident that they’re going to lose there. So all they’re attempting to do is to use every opportunity in the legal process to stall, delay and drag the project out. The Air Force has nothing to hide. The Vermont Air Guard has nothing to hide. We’re very confident that we’ll prevail.”
The government has 60 days to respond to the lawsuit.
Calls to the Vermont National Guard were not returned in time for broadcast.
Story, audio and photo: http://wamc.org
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
Exclusive: Civilian drones need costly fixes to avoid hacking, study indicates
Drones appear to be seriously vulnerable to hackers seeking to commandeer the vehicles by ‘spoofing,’ or faking, GPS satellite navigation signals. An overview of a federal study, obtained by the Monitor, discusses the problem and remedies.
Commercial drones expected to fly US skies in coming years, delivering pizza or monitoring power lines, would be dangerously vulnerable to hackers without a variety of potentially costly countermeasures to their GPS navigation systems, results of a federal study indicate.
Privacy and flight-safety concerns have dominated public debate since Congress voted two years ago to let thousands of parcel-laden or observational commercial drones trundle across US skies by 2015.
But an equally serious, if less recognized, threat lies in drone vulnerabilities to hackers seeking to commandeer unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) by “spoofing,” or faking, GPS satellite navigation signals using cheap GPS transmitting equipment. Such spoofing, when directed at a drone, could make it crash, drone experts say.
“Hacking commercial drones is a serious concern,” says Dennis Gormley, senior lecturer at Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. “There are plenty of people who argue we’re not doing enough, even with respect to securing our more sensitive and costly military drones. So, yes, I’m concerned about the civilian side of things.”
The Federal Aviation Administration's Next Generation Air Transportation System now in development is expected increase its reliance on GPS – the core of the US-operated global navigation satellite system (GNSS). To address the GPS spoofing threat, the FAA in 2012 initiated a federal study of GPS navigation vulnerability. That study – by the GNSS Intentional Interference and Spoofing Study Team – concluded last fall, but findings have not been released publicly. An FAA spokesman declined to comment on the study.
An overview of the study, obtained by the Monitor, lists major vulnerabilities that affect UAVs – as well as newly identified countermeasures to defeat attackers, an expert who has seen the overview says.
“GNSS receivers are susceptible to intentional interference and spoofing,” according to the overview report, which was delivered by an FAA expert at an international conference in New Zealand in April. “Inexpensive, and readily available, GNSS repeaters and GNSS simulation tools can transmit hazardously misleading information ‘spoofing’ GNSS use.”
That much had been suspected since UAV tests at White Sands Missile Range, which allowed University of Texas researchers to demonstrate in 2012 how a drone could be made to dive toward the ground by spoofing.
But the federal research team has apparently advanced the investigation by identifying and investigating no less than eight “intentional interference & spoofing threat scenarios,” including four “interference” (GPS signal jamming) scenarios and four signal-spoofing scenarios, the study overview indicates.
Yet the team also found “numerous technical, operational, and legal mitigations” to limit some of those threats. The report cites six specific technical recommendations to limit GPS hacking, including the use of advanced antennas and digital authentication signatures for satellite signals, according to the overview.
Still, the “ability to recognize deception is problematic” for equipment, pilots, and air traffic controllers, the overview notes. None of the security fixes are likely to come cheap, either – a major issue if the cost of drones is to be kept down to compete with drone-makers in other countries, experts say.
“The strategies they recommend are far from foolproof, but they're sensible: each of them would complicate a successful spoofing attack,” says Todd Humphreys, a professor and satellite navigation expert who led the University of Texas team during the White Sands demonstration and reviewed the study overview and findings for the Monitor. “The question on my mind, and I'm sure on theirs, is how soon some or all these could be implemented. I expect it'll be 5-10 years or more,” says Professor Humphreys, who made these comments via e-mail.
Peter Singer, a strategist at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy think tank based in Washington, agrees with him.
“Communications of any kind can be jammed or hacked given the right level of skill, motivation, and time,” he says. “So you want to focus not just on improving protection and prevention, but also resilience and response.”
Technical fixes will plug those GPS navigation system vulnerabilities not only for UAVs, but also for other aircraft, say commercial UAV industry officials.
“There are weaknesses to just relying on GPS for navigation, but those weaknesses are not just for unmanned aircraft,” says Ben Gielow, general counsel for the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, which represents the UAV industry. “It is a concern and it is being addressed, certainly.”
Still, the federal study findings arrive against a backdrop of rising public concern over the prospect of having drones hovering overhead. Last month, the Obama administration’s use of military drones was criticized by a bipartisan panel of experts for creating a “slippery slope” that could lead to perpetual war.
Civilian drones flown with FAA's permission are also in the limelight. Law enforcement agencies, universities, and other registered drone users reported 23 accidents and 236 unsafe incidents since November 2009, according to FAA records, The Washington Post reported last week.
In May, the Post reported, a quad-copter drone with four rotors crashed into the 30th floor of a St. Louis skyscraper. In March, the FAA fined a Brooklyn man $2,200 for hitting two midtown Manhattan skyscrapers with his quad-copter before it nearly crashed into a pedestrian.
Testing on UAV systems to improve safety could delay their arrival in US skies beyond 2015, many say.
Yet once given an FAA stamp of approval, the economy will feel a boost from the commercial drone business, Mr. Gielow says. The military and civilian UAV market is predicted to more than double over the next decade to more than $11 billion in 2023, according to the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Va., consulting firm.
In May, the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) unveiled an experimental drone built with secure software aimed at preventing its control and navigation systems from being hacked. Such systems could eventually work their way into commercial drones.
Yet some experts are circumspect about the prospect of preventing drones from being hacked, even with advanced mitigation measures.
“We agree the command-and-control link is one of the easiest to make a fix to by adding encryption,” says Humphreys in a phone interview. “The other weak point is the navigation link. It’s not encrypted and is easy to falsify. But changing signals so they are encrypted will, for civilian drones, take years, a decade – or never. It’s a serious problem.”
Story and Photos: http://www.csmonitor.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
Commercial drones expected to fly US skies in coming years, delivering pizza or monitoring power lines, would be dangerously vulnerable to hackers without a variety of potentially costly countermeasures to their GPS navigation systems, results of a federal study indicate.
Privacy and flight-safety concerns have dominated public debate since Congress voted two years ago to let thousands of parcel-laden or observational commercial drones trundle across US skies by 2015.
But an equally serious, if less recognized, threat lies in drone vulnerabilities to hackers seeking to commandeer unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) by “spoofing,” or faking, GPS satellite navigation signals using cheap GPS transmitting equipment. Such spoofing, when directed at a drone, could make it crash, drone experts say.
“Hacking commercial drones is a serious concern,” says Dennis Gormley, senior lecturer at Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. “There are plenty of people who argue we’re not doing enough, even with respect to securing our more sensitive and costly military drones. So, yes, I’m concerned about the civilian side of things.”
The Federal Aviation Administration's Next Generation Air Transportation System now in development is expected increase its reliance on GPS – the core of the US-operated global navigation satellite system (GNSS). To address the GPS spoofing threat, the FAA in 2012 initiated a federal study of GPS navigation vulnerability. That study – by the GNSS Intentional Interference and Spoofing Study Team – concluded last fall, but findings have not been released publicly. An FAA spokesman declined to comment on the study.
An overview of the study, obtained by the Monitor, lists major vulnerabilities that affect UAVs – as well as newly identified countermeasures to defeat attackers, an expert who has seen the overview says.
“GNSS receivers are susceptible to intentional interference and spoofing,” according to the overview report, which was delivered by an FAA expert at an international conference in New Zealand in April. “Inexpensive, and readily available, GNSS repeaters and GNSS simulation tools can transmit hazardously misleading information ‘spoofing’ GNSS use.”
That much had been suspected since UAV tests at White Sands Missile Range, which allowed University of Texas researchers to demonstrate in 2012 how a drone could be made to dive toward the ground by spoofing.
But the federal research team has apparently advanced the investigation by identifying and investigating no less than eight “intentional interference & spoofing threat scenarios,” including four “interference” (GPS signal jamming) scenarios and four signal-spoofing scenarios, the study overview indicates.
Yet the team also found “numerous technical, operational, and legal mitigations” to limit some of those threats. The report cites six specific technical recommendations to limit GPS hacking, including the use of advanced antennas and digital authentication signatures for satellite signals, according to the overview.
Still, the “ability to recognize deception is problematic” for equipment, pilots, and air traffic controllers, the overview notes. None of the security fixes are likely to come cheap, either – a major issue if the cost of drones is to be kept down to compete with drone-makers in other countries, experts say.
“The strategies they recommend are far from foolproof, but they're sensible: each of them would complicate a successful spoofing attack,” says Todd Humphreys, a professor and satellite navigation expert who led the University of Texas team during the White Sands demonstration and reviewed the study overview and findings for the Monitor. “The question on my mind, and I'm sure on theirs, is how soon some or all these could be implemented. I expect it'll be 5-10 years or more,” says Professor Humphreys, who made these comments via e-mail.
Peter Singer, a strategist at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan public policy think tank based in Washington, agrees with him.
“Communications of any kind can be jammed or hacked given the right level of skill, motivation, and time,” he says. “So you want to focus not just on improving protection and prevention, but also resilience and response.”
Technical fixes will plug those GPS navigation system vulnerabilities not only for UAVs, but also for other aircraft, say commercial UAV industry officials.
“There are weaknesses to just relying on GPS for navigation, but those weaknesses are not just for unmanned aircraft,” says Ben Gielow, general counsel for the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, which represents the UAV industry. “It is a concern and it is being addressed, certainly.”
Still, the federal study findings arrive against a backdrop of rising public concern over the prospect of having drones hovering overhead. Last month, the Obama administration’s use of military drones was criticized by a bipartisan panel of experts for creating a “slippery slope” that could lead to perpetual war.
Civilian drones flown with FAA's permission are also in the limelight. Law enforcement agencies, universities, and other registered drone users reported 23 accidents and 236 unsafe incidents since November 2009, according to FAA records, The Washington Post reported last week.
In May, the Post reported, a quad-copter drone with four rotors crashed into the 30th floor of a St. Louis skyscraper. In March, the FAA fined a Brooklyn man $2,200 for hitting two midtown Manhattan skyscrapers with his quad-copter before it nearly crashed into a pedestrian.
Testing on UAV systems to improve safety could delay their arrival in US skies beyond 2015, many say.
Yet once given an FAA stamp of approval, the economy will feel a boost from the commercial drone business, Mr. Gielow says. The military and civilian UAV market is predicted to more than double over the next decade to more than $11 billion in 2023, according to the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Va., consulting firm.
In May, the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) unveiled an experimental drone built with secure software aimed at preventing its control and navigation systems from being hacked. Such systems could eventually work their way into commercial drones.
Yet some experts are circumspect about the prospect of preventing drones from being hacked, even with advanced mitigation measures.
“We agree the command-and-control link is one of the easiest to make a fix to by adding encryption,” says Humphreys in a phone interview. “The other weak point is the navigation link. It’s not encrypted and is easy to falsify. But changing signals so they are encrypted will, for civilian drones, take years, a decade – or never. It’s a serious problem.”
Story and Photos: http://www.csmonitor.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
AERO SP Z O O AT-4 LSA, N1277K: Incident occurred July 03, 2014 at Front Range Airport (KFTG), Denver, Colorado
AIRCRAFT EXPERIENCED A STALL WHILE PERFORMING TOUCH AND GOES, FRONT RANGE AIRPORT, DENVER, CO.
Flight Standards District Office: FAA Denver FSDO-03
SKYRAIDER AVIATION INC: http://registry.faa.gov/N1277K
AERO SP Z O O
AERO SP Z O O AT-4 LSA
http://www.aspenflyingclub.com/n1277k.htm
Gobosh 700 - N1277K
SKYRAIDER AVIATION INC http://registry.faa.gov/N1277K
Officials are expected in Adams County to investigate a plane that skidded off the runway on Thursday at Front Range Airport.
Jim Siedlecki, a spokesman for Adams County, said there are no reported injuries.
The pilot of the plane was a student at the airport's flight school who was practicing touch-and-go landings.
The student pilot "felt what he described as a 'departure stall' on an attempted take-off," according to a news release from Adams County.
The student pilot had logged 30 hours of flight experience.
Read more here: http://www.denverpost.com
NTSB Identification: CEN11CA519
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, July 26, 2011 in Colorado Springs, CO
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/29/2011
Aircraft: AERO SP Z O O AT-4 LSA, registration: N1277K
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.
The student pilot was attempting to land when the airplane's descent rate increased, resulting in a hard landing and a bounce. The airplane nosed over prior to the touchdown, allowing the propeller to strike the runway and causing the nose landing gear to buckle and collapse before the airplane skidded to a stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall. A postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies with the airplane that would have prevented normal operation.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain proper approach speed and his inadequate recovery from a bounced landing.
The pilot was attempting to land when the airplane's descent rate increased resulting in a hard landing and a bounce. The airplane nosed over prior to the touchdown allowing the propeller to strike the runway and buckled and collapsed the nose landing gear. The airplane skidded to a stop. Substantial damage was sustained to the firewall. A postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies with the airplane.
Flight Standards District Office: FAA Denver FSDO-03
SKYRAIDER AVIATION INC: http://registry.faa.gov/N1277K
AERO SP Z O O
AERO SP Z O O AT-4 LSA
http://www.aspenflyingclub.com/n1277k.htm
Gobosh 700 - N1277K
SKYRAIDER AVIATION INC http://registry.faa.gov/N1277K
Officials are expected in Adams County to investigate a plane that skidded off the runway on Thursday at Front Range Airport.
Jim Siedlecki, a spokesman for Adams County, said there are no reported injuries.
The pilot of the plane was a student at the airport's flight school who was practicing touch-and-go landings.
The student pilot "felt what he described as a 'departure stall' on an attempted take-off," according to a news release from Adams County.
The student pilot had logged 30 hours of flight experience.
Read more here: http://www.denverpost.com
NTSB Identification: CEN11CA519
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, July 26, 2011 in Colorado Springs, CO
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/29/2011
Aircraft: AERO SP Z O O AT-4 LSA, registration: N1277K
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
NTSB investigators used data provided by various entities, including, but not limited to, the Federal Aviation Administration and/or the operator and did not travel in support of this investigation to prepare this aircraft accident report.
The student pilot was attempting to land when the airplane's descent rate increased, resulting in a hard landing and a bounce. The airplane nosed over prior to the touchdown, allowing the propeller to strike the runway and causing the nose landing gear to buckle and collapse before the airplane skidded to a stop. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the firewall. A postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies with the airplane that would have prevented normal operation.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's failure to maintain proper approach speed and his inadequate recovery from a bounced landing.
The pilot was attempting to land when the airplane's descent rate increased resulting in a hard landing and a bounce. The airplane nosed over prior to the touchdown allowing the propeller to strike the runway and buckled and collapsed the nose landing gear. The airplane skidded to a stop. Substantial damage was sustained to the firewall. A postaccident examination did not reveal any anomalies with the airplane.
Federal Aviation Administration responds after aerial advertising controversy
Is aerial advertising in Hawaii legal or against the law?
According to the Federal Aviation Administration, Aerial Banners North is allowed to fly despite a city ordinance against aerial advertising.
The FAA said Wednesday that the company was granted a certificate of waiver that trumps any law on the state or county level.
Aerial Banners North flew a small plane with a banner advertising its website over the weekend and the American flag on Memorial Day.
The Outdoor Circle previously told KHON2 it received dozens of complaints as the plane was seen on East and Windward Oahu and the North Shore, especially after a city law passed in 2005 made any type of aerial advertising in Honolulu illegal.
The FAA says it issued a waiver for the company to conduct banner towing operations, and that under federal law, the administration has sole jurisdiction over all civilian airspace in the country.
The Outdoor Circle is still looking into how it can stop the company from advertising in Hawaii’s skies.
“There is no right per se to advertising. It is a privilege that is regulated and in Hawaii, unlike any other place in the world, we hold our natural beauty above all else,” said Marti Townsend of The Outdoor Circle.
It is not clear what if anything can be done to stop the company from advertising.
The FAA says other companies can also receive waivers as long as they demonstrate that they are able to operate safety and comply with the provisions in the waiver.
FAA FSIMS: CHAPTER 3 ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER OR AUTHORIZATION—14 CFR SECTION 91.311 (BANNER TOWING)
Section 1 Issue a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization—Section 91.311 (Banner Towing)
3-61 PROGRAM TRACKING AND REPORTING SUBSYSTEM (PTRS) ACTIVITY CODE. 1220.
3-62 OBJECTIVE. The objective of this task is to determine if an applicant is eligible for issuance of a certificate of waiver or authorization for banner tow operations. Successful completion of this task results in issuance of a certificate or disapproval of the application.
3-63 GENERAL.
A. Authority. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, § 91.311, provides for the issuance of a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for aircraft banner tow operations.
B. Definition. A banner is an advertising medium supported by a temporary framework attached externally to the aircraft and towed behind the aircraft.
C. Eligibility. Operators of either standard or restricted category aircraft may apply for a certificate to engage in banner tow operations. Operators of restricted category aircraft may also be required to operate under the provisions of a waiver to § 91.313(e).
D. Federal Statutory Mandates. See Figure 3-14, PL 108-109, Section 521, Reference Information: Public Laws Associated with Tasks of this Handbook, for guidance regarding applicable statutory mandates for banner tow operations.
E. Forms Used. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 7711-2, Application for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (see Figure 3-6), is a multipurpose form used to apply for FAA Form 7711-1, Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (See Figure 3-7.) The Blocks that apply to banner tow operations are listed in subparagraph 3-68 C.
F. Submission. An applicant requesting a certificate is responsible for the completion and submission of FAA Form 7711-2. The application should be submitted a minimum of 30 days before the banner tow activity will take place. §445-113 Regulation by counties. Except for outdoor advertising devices authorized under section 445-112(16) and (17), the several counties may adopt ordinances regulating billboards and outdoor advertising devices not prohibited by sections 445-111 to 445-121. The ordinances may:
(3) Prohibit the erection or maintenance of any type of billboard or the displaying of any outdoor advertising device in particular parts, or in all parts, of the county; provided that the prohibition shall not apply to any official notice or sign described in section 445-112(1); and provided further that, unless a county ordinance specifies otherwise, the prohibition shall extend to billboards or outdoor advertising devices located in the airspace or waters beyond the boundaries of the county that are visible from any public highway, park, or other public place located within the county;
“Ordinance prohibiting aerial advertising did not violate the First Amendment or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Honolulu’s airspace was a nonpublic forum, and the ordinance was reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and rationally related to legitimate governmental interests. 455 F.3d 910.” Honolulu.gov ROH Chapter 40
Article 6. Aerial Advertising
Sections:
40-6.1 Prohibited–Exceptions.
40-6.2 Violation–Penalty.
Sec. 40-6.1 Prohibited–Exceptions.
(a) Except as allowed under subsection (b), no person shall use any type of aircraft or other self-propelled or buoyant airborne object to display in any manner or for any purpose whatsoever any sign or advertising device. For the purpose of this section, a “sign or advertising device” includes, but is not limited to, a poster, banner, writing, picture, painting, light, model, display, emblem, notice, illustration, insignia, symbol or any other form of advertising sign or device.
(b) Exceptions.
(1) Subsection (a) shall not prohibit the display of an identifying mark, trade name, trade insignia, or trademark on the exterior of an aircraft or self-propelled or buoyant airborne object if the displayed item is under the ownership or registration of the aircraft’s or airborne object’s owner.
(2) Subsection (a) shall not prohibit the display of a sign or advertising device placed wholly and visible only within the interior of an aircraft or self-propelled or buoyant airborne object.
(3) Subsection (a) shall not apply to the display of a sign or advertising device when placed on or attached to any ground, building, or structure and subject to regulation under Chapter 21 or 41. Such a sign or advertising device shall be permitted, prohibited, or otherwise regulated as provided under the applicable chapter.
(Sec. 13-32.1, R.O. 1978 (1983 Ed.); Am. Ord. 96-33) Sec. 40-6.2 Violation–Penalty. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not less than $25.00 nor more than $500.00, or by imprisonment not exceeding three months, or by both. (Sec. 13-32.2, R.O. 1978 (1983 Ed.))
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM, INC.; Gregg Cunningham, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; Peter Carlisle, in his official capacity as the City and County of Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney; Boisse P. Correa, in his official capacity as Chief of Police, Honolulu Police Department, successor to Lee D. Donohue, Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-17496.
The City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii (“Honolulu”), has a long history of comprehensive regulatory oversight over its visual landscape, an effort designed to protect the area’s unique and widely-renowned scenic resources. For example, in 1957, Honolulu was among the first municipalities to enact a comprehensive ordinance regulating signs, see State v. Diamond Motors, Inc., 50 Haw. 33, 429 P.2d 825, 826 (1967), and, in 1978, Honolulu first passed what later became Revised Ordinance of Honolulu § 40-6.1 (1996) (“the Ordinance”), which prohibits aerial advertising.
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Ordinance may be used to restrict an advocacy group from towing aerial banners over the beaches of Honolulu. To answer this question, we must first decide whether the Ordinance is preempted by federal law, and, if not, whether it passes constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Less than five years ago, we answered the preemption question in the negative. Skysign Int’l, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.2002). Nothing presented in this appeal persuades us that we should depart from that precedent. As to the constitutional question, we hold that the Ordinance passes constitutional muster. The Ordinance is a reasonable and viewpoint neutral restriction on speech in a nonpublic forum, and the banner towing prohibited by the Ordinance is neither a historically important form of communication nor speech that has unique identifying attributes for which there is no practical substitute. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Honolulu.
…
The district court properly granted Honolulu’s motion for summary judgment. Federal law does not preempt the Ordinance. Nor does the Ordinance violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Honolulu’s airspace is a nonpublic forum, and the Ordinance is reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.
Story, Video and Comments: http://khon2.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
According to the Federal Aviation Administration, Aerial Banners North is allowed to fly despite a city ordinance against aerial advertising.
The FAA said Wednesday that the company was granted a certificate of waiver that trumps any law on the state or county level.
Aerial Banners North flew a small plane with a banner advertising its website over the weekend and the American flag on Memorial Day.
The Outdoor Circle previously told KHON2 it received dozens of complaints as the plane was seen on East and Windward Oahu and the North Shore, especially after a city law passed in 2005 made any type of aerial advertising in Honolulu illegal.
The FAA says it issued a waiver for the company to conduct banner towing operations, and that under federal law, the administration has sole jurisdiction over all civilian airspace in the country.
The Outdoor Circle is still looking into how it can stop the company from advertising in Hawaii’s skies.
“There is no right per se to advertising. It is a privilege that is regulated and in Hawaii, unlike any other place in the world, we hold our natural beauty above all else,” said Marti Townsend of The Outdoor Circle.
It is not clear what if anything can be done to stop the company from advertising.
The FAA says other companies can also receive waivers as long as they demonstrate that they are able to operate safety and comply with the provisions in the waiver.
FAA FSIMS: CHAPTER 3 ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER OR AUTHORIZATION—14 CFR SECTION 91.311 (BANNER TOWING)
Section 1 Issue a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization—Section 91.311 (Banner Towing)
3-61 PROGRAM TRACKING AND REPORTING SUBSYSTEM (PTRS) ACTIVITY CODE. 1220.
3-62 OBJECTIVE. The objective of this task is to determine if an applicant is eligible for issuance of a certificate of waiver or authorization for banner tow operations. Successful completion of this task results in issuance of a certificate or disapproval of the application.
3-63 GENERAL.
A. Authority. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, § 91.311, provides for the issuance of a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for aircraft banner tow operations.
B. Definition. A banner is an advertising medium supported by a temporary framework attached externally to the aircraft and towed behind the aircraft.
C. Eligibility. Operators of either standard or restricted category aircraft may apply for a certificate to engage in banner tow operations. Operators of restricted category aircraft may also be required to operate under the provisions of a waiver to § 91.313(e).
D. Federal Statutory Mandates. See Figure 3-14, PL 108-109, Section 521, Reference Information: Public Laws Associated with Tasks of this Handbook, for guidance regarding applicable statutory mandates for banner tow operations.
E. Forms Used. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 7711-2, Application for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (see Figure 3-6), is a multipurpose form used to apply for FAA Form 7711-1, Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (See Figure 3-7.) The Blocks that apply to banner tow operations are listed in subparagraph 3-68 C.
F. Submission. An applicant requesting a certificate is responsible for the completion and submission of FAA Form 7711-2. The application should be submitted a minimum of 30 days before the banner tow activity will take place. §445-113 Regulation by counties. Except for outdoor advertising devices authorized under section 445-112(16) and (17), the several counties may adopt ordinances regulating billboards and outdoor advertising devices not prohibited by sections 445-111 to 445-121. The ordinances may:
(3) Prohibit the erection or maintenance of any type of billboard or the displaying of any outdoor advertising device in particular parts, or in all parts, of the county; provided that the prohibition shall not apply to any official notice or sign described in section 445-112(1); and provided further that, unless a county ordinance specifies otherwise, the prohibition shall extend to billboards or outdoor advertising devices located in the airspace or waters beyond the boundaries of the county that are visible from any public highway, park, or other public place located within the county;
“Ordinance prohibiting aerial advertising did not violate the First Amendment or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Honolulu’s airspace was a nonpublic forum, and the ordinance was reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and rationally related to legitimate governmental interests. 455 F.3d 910.” Honolulu.gov ROH Chapter 40
Article 6. Aerial Advertising
Sections:
40-6.1 Prohibited–Exceptions.
40-6.2 Violation–Penalty.
Sec. 40-6.1 Prohibited–Exceptions.
(a) Except as allowed under subsection (b), no person shall use any type of aircraft or other self-propelled or buoyant airborne object to display in any manner or for any purpose whatsoever any sign or advertising device. For the purpose of this section, a “sign or advertising device” includes, but is not limited to, a poster, banner, writing, picture, painting, light, model, display, emblem, notice, illustration, insignia, symbol or any other form of advertising sign or device.
(b) Exceptions.
(1) Subsection (a) shall not prohibit the display of an identifying mark, trade name, trade insignia, or trademark on the exterior of an aircraft or self-propelled or buoyant airborne object if the displayed item is under the ownership or registration of the aircraft’s or airborne object’s owner.
(2) Subsection (a) shall not prohibit the display of a sign or advertising device placed wholly and visible only within the interior of an aircraft or self-propelled or buoyant airborne object.
(3) Subsection (a) shall not apply to the display of a sign or advertising device when placed on or attached to any ground, building, or structure and subject to regulation under Chapter 21 or 41. Such a sign or advertising device shall be permitted, prohibited, or otherwise regulated as provided under the applicable chapter.
(Sec. 13-32.1, R.O. 1978 (1983 Ed.); Am. Ord. 96-33) Sec. 40-6.2 Violation–Penalty. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not less than $25.00 nor more than $500.00, or by imprisonment not exceeding three months, or by both. (Sec. 13-32.2, R.O. 1978 (1983 Ed.))
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM, INC.; Gregg Cunningham, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; Peter Carlisle, in his official capacity as the City and County of Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney; Boisse P. Correa, in his official capacity as Chief of Police, Honolulu Police Department, successor to Lee D. Donohue, Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-17496.
The City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii (“Honolulu”), has a long history of comprehensive regulatory oversight over its visual landscape, an effort designed to protect the area’s unique and widely-renowned scenic resources. For example, in 1957, Honolulu was among the first municipalities to enact a comprehensive ordinance regulating signs, see State v. Diamond Motors, Inc., 50 Haw. 33, 429 P.2d 825, 826 (1967), and, in 1978, Honolulu first passed what later became Revised Ordinance of Honolulu § 40-6.1 (1996) (“the Ordinance”), which prohibits aerial advertising.
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Ordinance may be used to restrict an advocacy group from towing aerial banners over the beaches of Honolulu. To answer this question, we must first decide whether the Ordinance is preempted by federal law, and, if not, whether it passes constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Less than five years ago, we answered the preemption question in the negative. Skysign Int’l, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.2002). Nothing presented in this appeal persuades us that we should depart from that precedent. As to the constitutional question, we hold that the Ordinance passes constitutional muster. The Ordinance is a reasonable and viewpoint neutral restriction on speech in a nonpublic forum, and the banner towing prohibited by the Ordinance is neither a historically important form of communication nor speech that has unique identifying attributes for which there is no practical substitute. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Honolulu.
…
The district court properly granted Honolulu’s motion for summary judgment. Federal law does not preempt the Ordinance. Nor does the Ordinance violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Honolulu’s airspace is a nonpublic forum, and the Ordinance is reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.
Story, Video and Comments: http://khon2.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
The Outdoor Circle issues cease-and-desist letter over aerial advertising
The Outdoor Circle is taking action against Aerial Banners North
after the company flew two different banners over Oahu’s skies in the
past two months.
On Memorial Day, a small plane was spotted carrying the American flag. Then, over the weekend, it took to the sky again — this time with a banner advertising the company’s website.
The Outdoor Circle sent a formal cease-and-desist letter Thursday to Aerial Banners North for violation of state law and county ordinances.
“Aerial Banners North is under the misbelief that a certificate of waiver issued to it by the Federal Aviation Administration for aerial banner towing activities entitles the company to fly advertisements in Hawaiian skies regardless of Hawaii’s laws. A review of FAA regulations makes clear this is not the case,” the organization said in a media release Thursday.
“We have been close communication with City officials and have forwarded eye-witness reports of aerial advertising to them with the expectation that they will immediately enforce the county aerial advertising ban,” said Marti Townsend, executive director of The Outdoor Circle.
The letter specifically points out Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Organization Policy §18-1-2(d) (FAAO JO 7210.37, April 3, 2014)
The grant of a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization constitutes relief from the specific regulations stated, to the degree and for the period of time specified in the certificate, and does not waive any state law or local ordinance. Should the proposed operations conflict with any state law or local ordinance, or require permission of local authorities or property owners, it is the applicant’s responsibility to resolve the matter. A city ordinance, ROH § 40-6.1(a), passed in 2005, made any type of aerial advertising in Honolulu illegal.
However, the FAA told KHON2 Wednesday it issued a waiver for the company to conduct banner towing operations, and that under federal law, the administration has sole jurisdiction over all civilian airspace in the country.
The company says it plans to fly with the American flag Friday, in honor of Independence Day.
Stay with KHON2.com for updates and watch the full story on KHON2 News at 5 and 6 p.m.
FAA FSIMS: CHAPTER 3 ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER OR AUTHORIZATION—14 CFR SECTION 91.311 (BANNER TOWING)
Section 1 Issue a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization—Section 91.311 (Banner Towing)
3-61 PROGRAM TRACKING AND REPORTING SUBSYSTEM (PTRS) ACTIVITY CODE. 1220.
3-62 OBJECTIVE. The objective of this task is to determine if an applicant is eligible for issuance of a certificate of waiver or authorization for banner tow operations. Successful completion of this task results in issuance of a certificate or disapproval of the application.
3-63 GENERAL.
A. Authority. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, § 91.311, provides for the issuance of a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for aircraft banner tow operations.
B. Definition. A banner is an advertising medium supported by a temporary framework attached externally to the aircraft and towed behind the aircraft.
C. Eligibility. Operators of either standard or restricted category aircraft may apply for a certificate to engage in banner tow operations. Operators of restricted category aircraft may also be required to operate under the provisions of a waiver to § 91.313(e).
D. Federal Statutory Mandates. See Figure 3-14, PL 108-109, Section 521, Reference Information: Public Laws Associated with Tasks of this Handbook, for guidance regarding applicable statutory mandates for banner tow operations.
E. Forms Used. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 7711-2, Application for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (see Figure 3-6), is a multipurpose form used to apply for FAA Form 7711-1, Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (See Figure 3-7.) The Blocks that apply to banner tow operations are listed in subparagraph 3-68 C.
F. Submission. An applicant requesting a certificate is responsible for the completion and submission of FAA Form 7711-2. The application should be submitted a minimum of 30 days before the banner tow activity will take place.
§445-113 Regulation by counties. Except for outdoor advertising devices authorized under section 445-112(16) and (17), the several counties may adopt ordinances regulating billboards and outdoor advertising devices not prohibited by sections 445-111 to 445-121.
The ordinances may:
(3) Prohibit the erection or maintenance of any type of billboard or the displaying of any outdoor advertising device in particular parts, or in all parts, of the county; provided that the prohibition shall not apply to any official notice or sign described in section 445-112(1); and provided further that, unless a county ordinance specifies otherwise, the prohibition shall extend to billboards or outdoor advertising devices located in the airspace or waters beyond the boundaries of the county that are visible from any public highway, park, or other public place located within the county;
“Ordinance prohibiting aerial advertising did not violate the First Amendment or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Honolulu’s airspace was a nonpublic forum, and the ordinance was reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and rationally related to legitimate governmental interests. 455 F.3d 910.”
Honolulu.gov ROH Chapter 40
Article 6. Aerial Advertising
Sections:
40-6.1 Prohibited–Exceptions.
40-6.2 Violation–Penalty.
Sec. 40-6.1 Prohibited–Exceptions.
(a) Except as allowed under subsection (b), no person shall use any type of aircraft or other self-propelled or buoyant airborne object to display in any manner or for any purpose whatsoever any sign or advertising device. For the purpose of this section, a “sign or advertising device” includes, but is not limited to, a poster, banner, writing, picture, painting, light, model, display, emblem, notice, illustration, insignia, symbol or any other form of advertising sign or device.
(b) Exceptions.
(1) Subsection (a) shall not prohibit the display of an identifying mark, trade name, trade insignia, or trademark on the exterior of an aircraft or self-propelled or buoyant airborne object if the displayed item is under the ownership or registration of the aircraft’s or airborne object’s owner.
(2) Subsection (a) shall not prohibit the display of a sign or advertising device placed wholly and visible only within the interior of an aircraft or self-propelled or buoyant airborne object.
(3) Subsection (a) shall not apply to the display of a sign or advertising device when placed on or attached to any ground, building, or structure and subject to regulation under Chapter 21 or 41. Such a sign or advertising device shall be permitted, prohibited, or otherwise regulated as provided under the applicable chapter.
(Sec. 13-32.1, R.O. 1978 (1983 Ed.); Am. Ord. 96-33) Sec. 40-6.2 Violation–Penalty. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not less than $25.00 nor more than $500.00, or by imprisonment not exceeding three months, or by both. (Sec. 13-32.2, R.O. 1978 (1983 Ed.))
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM, INC.; Gregg Cunningham, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; Peter Carlisle, in his official capacity as the City and County of Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney; Boisse P. Correa, in his official capacity as Chief of Police, Honolulu Police Department, successor to Lee D. Donohue, Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-17496.
The City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii (“Honolulu”), has a long history of comprehensive regulatory oversight over its visual landscape, an effort designed to protect the area’s unique and widely-renowned scenic resources. For example, in 1957, Honolulu was among the first municipalities to enact a comprehensive ordinance regulating signs, see State v. Diamond Motors, Inc., 50 Haw. 33, 429 P.2d 825, 826 (1967), and, in 1978, Honolulu first passed what later became Revised Ordinance of Honolulu § 40-6.1 (1996) (“the Ordinance”), which prohibits aerial advertising.
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Ordinance may be used to restrict an advocacy group from towing aerial banners over the beaches of Honolulu. To answer this question, we must first decide whether the Ordinance is preempted by federal law, and, if not, whether it passes constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Less than five years ago, we answered the preemption question in the negative. Skysign Int’l, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.2002). Nothing presented in this appeal persuades us that we should depart from that precedent. As to the constitutional question, we hold that the Ordinance passes constitutional muster. The Ordinance is a reasonable and viewpoint neutral restriction on speech in a nonpublic forum, and the banner towing prohibited by the Ordinance is neither a historically important form of communication nor speech that has unique identifying attributes for which there is no practical substitute. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Honolulu.
The district court properly granted Honolulu’s motion for summary judgment. Federal law does not preempt the Ordinance. Nor does the Ordinance violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Honolulu’s airspace is a nonpublic forum, and the Ordinance is reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.
Story and Photo: http://khon2.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
On Memorial Day, a small plane was spotted carrying the American flag. Then, over the weekend, it took to the sky again — this time with a banner advertising the company’s website.
The Outdoor Circle sent a formal cease-and-desist letter Thursday to Aerial Banners North for violation of state law and county ordinances.
“Aerial Banners North is under the misbelief that a certificate of waiver issued to it by the Federal Aviation Administration for aerial banner towing activities entitles the company to fly advertisements in Hawaiian skies regardless of Hawaii’s laws. A review of FAA regulations makes clear this is not the case,” the organization said in a media release Thursday.
“We have been close communication with City officials and have forwarded eye-witness reports of aerial advertising to them with the expectation that they will immediately enforce the county aerial advertising ban,” said Marti Townsend, executive director of The Outdoor Circle.
The letter specifically points out Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Organization Policy §18-1-2(d) (FAAO JO 7210.37, April 3, 2014)
The grant of a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization constitutes relief from the specific regulations stated, to the degree and for the period of time specified in the certificate, and does not waive any state law or local ordinance. Should the proposed operations conflict with any state law or local ordinance, or require permission of local authorities or property owners, it is the applicant’s responsibility to resolve the matter. A city ordinance, ROH § 40-6.1(a), passed in 2005, made any type of aerial advertising in Honolulu illegal.
However, the FAA told KHON2 Wednesday it issued a waiver for the company to conduct banner towing operations, and that under federal law, the administration has sole jurisdiction over all civilian airspace in the country.
The company says it plans to fly with the American flag Friday, in honor of Independence Day.
Stay with KHON2.com for updates and watch the full story on KHON2 News at 5 and 6 p.m.
FAA FSIMS: CHAPTER 3 ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF WAIVER OR AUTHORIZATION—14 CFR SECTION 91.311 (BANNER TOWING)
Section 1 Issue a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization—Section 91.311 (Banner Towing)
3-61 PROGRAM TRACKING AND REPORTING SUBSYSTEM (PTRS) ACTIVITY CODE. 1220.
3-62 OBJECTIVE. The objective of this task is to determine if an applicant is eligible for issuance of a certificate of waiver or authorization for banner tow operations. Successful completion of this task results in issuance of a certificate or disapproval of the application.
3-63 GENERAL.
A. Authority. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 91, § 91.311, provides for the issuance of a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization for aircraft banner tow operations.
B. Definition. A banner is an advertising medium supported by a temporary framework attached externally to the aircraft and towed behind the aircraft.
C. Eligibility. Operators of either standard or restricted category aircraft may apply for a certificate to engage in banner tow operations. Operators of restricted category aircraft may also be required to operate under the provisions of a waiver to § 91.313(e).
D. Federal Statutory Mandates. See Figure 3-14, PL 108-109, Section 521, Reference Information: Public Laws Associated with Tasks of this Handbook, for guidance regarding applicable statutory mandates for banner tow operations.
E. Forms Used. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 7711-2, Application for a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (see Figure 3-6), is a multipurpose form used to apply for FAA Form 7711-1, Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (See Figure 3-7.) The Blocks that apply to banner tow operations are listed in subparagraph 3-68 C.
F. Submission. An applicant requesting a certificate is responsible for the completion and submission of FAA Form 7711-2. The application should be submitted a minimum of 30 days before the banner tow activity will take place.
§445-113 Regulation by counties. Except for outdoor advertising devices authorized under section 445-112(16) and (17), the several counties may adopt ordinances regulating billboards and outdoor advertising devices not prohibited by sections 445-111 to 445-121.
The ordinances may:
(3) Prohibit the erection or maintenance of any type of billboard or the displaying of any outdoor advertising device in particular parts, or in all parts, of the county; provided that the prohibition shall not apply to any official notice or sign described in section 445-112(1); and provided further that, unless a county ordinance specifies otherwise, the prohibition shall extend to billboards or outdoor advertising devices located in the airspace or waters beyond the boundaries of the county that are visible from any public highway, park, or other public place located within the county;
“Ordinance prohibiting aerial advertising did not violate the First Amendment or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Honolulu’s airspace was a nonpublic forum, and the ordinance was reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and rationally related to legitimate governmental interests. 455 F.3d 910.”
Honolulu.gov ROH Chapter 40
Article 6. Aerial Advertising
Sections:
40-6.1 Prohibited–Exceptions.
40-6.2 Violation–Penalty.
Sec. 40-6.1 Prohibited–Exceptions.
(a) Except as allowed under subsection (b), no person shall use any type of aircraft or other self-propelled or buoyant airborne object to display in any manner or for any purpose whatsoever any sign or advertising device. For the purpose of this section, a “sign or advertising device” includes, but is not limited to, a poster, banner, writing, picture, painting, light, model, display, emblem, notice, illustration, insignia, symbol or any other form of advertising sign or device.
(b) Exceptions.
(1) Subsection (a) shall not prohibit the display of an identifying mark, trade name, trade insignia, or trademark on the exterior of an aircraft or self-propelled or buoyant airborne object if the displayed item is under the ownership or registration of the aircraft’s or airborne object’s owner.
(2) Subsection (a) shall not prohibit the display of a sign or advertising device placed wholly and visible only within the interior of an aircraft or self-propelled or buoyant airborne object.
(3) Subsection (a) shall not apply to the display of a sign or advertising device when placed on or attached to any ground, building, or structure and subject to regulation under Chapter 21 or 41. Such a sign or advertising device shall be permitted, prohibited, or otherwise regulated as provided under the applicable chapter.
(Sec. 13-32.1, R.O. 1978 (1983 Ed.); Am. Ord. 96-33) Sec. 40-6.2 Violation–Penalty. Any person who violates any provision of this article shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not less than $25.00 nor more than $500.00, or by imprisonment not exceeding three months, or by both. (Sec. 13-32.2, R.O. 1978 (1983 Ed.))
United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. CENTER FOR BIO-ETHICAL REFORM, INC.; Gregg Cunningham, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; Peter Carlisle, in his official capacity as the City and County of Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney; Boisse P. Correa, in his official capacity as Chief of Police, Honolulu Police Department, successor to Lee D. Donohue, Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-17496.
The City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii (“Honolulu”), has a long history of comprehensive regulatory oversight over its visual landscape, an effort designed to protect the area’s unique and widely-renowned scenic resources. For example, in 1957, Honolulu was among the first municipalities to enact a comprehensive ordinance regulating signs, see State v. Diamond Motors, Inc., 50 Haw. 33, 429 P.2d 825, 826 (1967), and, in 1978, Honolulu first passed what later became Revised Ordinance of Honolulu § 40-6.1 (1996) (“the Ordinance”), which prohibits aerial advertising.
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Ordinance may be used to restrict an advocacy group from towing aerial banners over the beaches of Honolulu. To answer this question, we must first decide whether the Ordinance is preempted by federal law, and, if not, whether it passes constitutional scrutiny under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Less than five years ago, we answered the preemption question in the negative. Skysign Int’l, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.2002). Nothing presented in this appeal persuades us that we should depart from that precedent. As to the constitutional question, we hold that the Ordinance passes constitutional muster. The Ordinance is a reasonable and viewpoint neutral restriction on speech in a nonpublic forum, and the banner towing prohibited by the Ordinance is neither a historically important form of communication nor speech that has unique identifying attributes for which there is no practical substitute. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Honolulu.
The district court properly granted Honolulu’s motion for summary judgment. Federal law does not preempt the Ordinance. Nor does the Ordinance violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Honolulu’s airspace is a nonpublic forum, and the Ordinance is reasonable, viewpoint neutral, and rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.
Story and Photo: http://khon2.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
Incident occurred at Renton Municipal Airport (KRNT), Washington
The runway at Renton Municipal Airport was closed for about an hour following an accident involving a single-engine plane.
No one was injured and no fuel was spilled in the incident.
According to Airport Manager Ryan Zulauf, the pilot of a single-engine Cessna was practicing "touch-and-gos" when the plane exited the runway. A touch-and-go is a practice landing in which the pilot lands the plane, but immediately takes off again before stopping the engine.
Story, Photo and Comments: http://www.rentonreporter.com
No one was injured and no fuel was spilled in the incident.
According to Airport Manager Ryan Zulauf, the pilot of a single-engine Cessna was practicing "touch-and-gos" when the plane exited the runway. A touch-and-go is a practice landing in which the pilot lands the plane, but immediately takes off again before stopping the engine.
Story, Photo and Comments: http://www.rentonreporter.com
Cessna 336 Skymaster, N3804U, Mobile County Health Dept: Accident occurred July 03, 2014 in Mobile, Alabama
NTSB Identification: ERA14TA326
14 CFR Public Use
Accident occurred Thursday, July 03, 2014 in Mobile, AL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 04/27/2015
Aircraft: CESSNA 336, registration: N3804U
Injuries: 1 Serious.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this public aircraft accident report.
The pilot reported that he was performing mosquito control spraying operations at 100 ft above ground level (agl) when the rear engine began to sputter and lose power. He switched to the auxiliary fuel tank; however, this did not remedy the situation. He then climbed the airplane to 500 ft agl and continued to troubleshoot the problem by again switching fuel tanks and turning the electric boost pumps on. Shortly thereafter, the front engine began to lose power. Unable to regain full power on both engines, the pilot chose to perform a forced landing in an open field. The airplane touched down on soft soil and stopped abruptly, which resulted in extensive damage to the airplane. Both fuel selectors were found in the right main fuel tank positions. An examination of the fuel system revealed that the main fuel tanks contained only residual fuel and that the auxiliary tanks contained an adequate amount of fuel. Examination of the fuel lines revealed that both supply lines from the gascolators to the engine-driven fuel pumps were contaminated and obstructed with a granular, powder-like substance. The engines ran normally when operated in a test cell after the accident.
The auxiliary fuel tanks were designed for level, cruise flight only. The auxiliary tanks fed directly to the fuel selector and had no boost pumps available. It is likely that, due to the fuel system’s design, adequate fuel pressure could not be regained once the main tanks were depleted and the pilot switched to the auxiliary tanks. The contamination in the fuel lines might have further restricted fuel flow to the engines. The loss of engine power might have been prevented if the pilot had maintained an adequate amount of fuel in the main tanks.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot’s inadequate preflight fuel planning during which he did not ensure that there was adequate fuel in the main tanks for the flight, which resulted in a loss of engine power.
On July 3, 2014, about 1846 central daylight time, a Cessna 336, N3804U, force landed following a partial loss of engine power at Mobile, Alabama. The airline transport pilot was seriously injured, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was operated by the Mobile County Health Department. Day, visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local, public use, aerial application flight, and no flight plan was filed. The local flight originated at St. Elmo, Alabama (2R5) about 1829.
The pilot reported in a written statement to the NTSB that he was assigned to mosquito control spraying operations in the Mobile area. He departed 2R5 with about 48 gallons of fuel, including 36 gallons in the auxiliary tanks. While established on the southbound leg of a spray pattern, he transferred the engines, one at a time, to the full, 18 gallon auxiliary tanks. Shortly after, the engines began to "sputter" and would not maintain rpm. He aborted the spray run, "zoom climbed" to about 600 feet above the ground (agl), and turned to a heading of about 210, in the direction of Mobile Downtown Airport (BFM), about 4 to 5 nautical miles away. The available power was intermittent with rpm surges on both engines, and power available appeared insufficient to reach BFM. He set up for a forced landing on an island between a container terminal and a coal terminal. The airplane touched down on soft soil and came to a stop abruptly, resulting in extensive damage to the airplane.
An inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration responded to the accident site and examined the wreckage. Structural damage to the fuselage was confirmed. An examination of the fuel system revealed that the fuel selector handle for the front engine was in the right main tank position. The fuel selector handle for the rear engine was broken off from impact forces. It was later determined that the rear engine fuel selector was also in the right main tank position. The left and right main fuel tanks were empty of fuel and only residual fuel (about 2 ounces) was drained from the left and right main sump tanks. The tanks were not breached. The design of main fuel tanks allows them to completely drain into their respective sump tanks. The left and right auxiliary tanks contained sufficient fuel; however, it was not quantified.
The FAA inspector interviewed the pilot on July 9, 2014. He stated in the interview that he had been flying at 100 feet agl when the rear engine began "sputtering and coughing." He switched to the auxiliary fuel tank; however, this did not remedy the situation. He climbed the airplane to 500 feet agl and continued to troubleshoot by switching tanks and turning the boost pumps on. The front engine then began to lose power. He continued to troubleshoot the loss of power and realized that he could not maintain altitude and needed to perform an emergency landing short of the airport.
The engines were removed from the airframe and sent to the manufacturer's facility for examination. The engines were test run during the week of July 21 through 25, 2014. After repair of impact-related damage, the engines ran normally in a test cell. The test runs did not reveal any abnormalities that would have prevented normal operation and production of rated horsepower.
On January 16, 2015, the aircraft fuel system was re-examined under the supervision of the NTSB investigator-in-charge. The both engine fuel selectors were confirmed to be in the right main tank positions. Flaky, rust-colored debris was observed inside the right sump tank. The left sump tank was relatively clean. The left and right wing auxiliary fuel pumps, which operate the left and right main tank fuel sources only, were found to be functional when energized with a dc electrical source. The fuel lines from the fuel selector valves to the main and auxiliary tanks were unobstructed.
The rear engine fuel strainer was opened for examination. It contained about 1/8 teaspoon of light gray, powder-like debris in the bowl. The screen was unobstructed. The supply line from the strainer to the engine-driven fuel pump was obstructed; no air could be blown through it by mouth. The obstruction was removed with a clean piece of wire; about one teaspoon of light gray, powder-like debris was removed.
The front engine fuel strainer was opened for examination. The bottom of the bowl was corroded with a rust-like substance. The screen was unobstructed. The supply line from the strainer to the engine-driven fuel pump was obstructed; no air could be blown through it by mouth. The obstruction was removed with a clean piece of wire; about one half teaspoon of rust-colored, granular debris was removed.
According to the aircraft manufacturer, the auxiliary fuel tanks are intended for level, cruise flight. The auxiliary fuel tanks gravity feed directly to the fuel strainer; no boost pumps are available. The Cessna 336 pilot's operating handbook (POH) states that, in the pre-flight exterior inspection and the before landing checklist, the main tanks are to be selected. Also, the POH states that, in the event of an engine out situation during flight, the main tanks are to be selected if the auxiliary tanks are in use.
http://registry.faa.gov/N3804U
NTSB Identification: ERA14TA326
14 CFR Public Use
Accident occurred Thursday, July 03, 2014 in Mobile, AL
Aircraft: CESSNA 336, registration: N3804U
Injuries: 1 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this public aircraft accident report.
On July 3, 2014, about 1946 central daylight time, a Cessna 336, N3804U, force landed following a partial loss of engine power at Mobile, Alabama. The airline transport pilot was seriously injured, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was operated by the Mobile County Health Department. Day, visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local, public use, aerial application flight, and no flight plan was filed. The local flight originated at St. Elmo, Alabama (2R5) at an undetermined time.
According to the pilot, he was assigned to mosquito control spraying operations in the Mobile area. While flying at 100 feet above the ground, a loss of engine power was observed on both engines. He initiated a climb and assessed the situation. He was unable to maintain altitude and could not recover full engine power, so he force landed the airplane in a nearby field. The nose landing gear collapsed in the soft soil and the airplane came to a stop.
An inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration responded to the accident site and examined the wreckage. Structural damage to the fuselage was confirmed. The engines were removed and will be examined at a later date at the manufacturer's facilities under the direction of the NTSB.
Mobile-Fire Rescue officials said they responded to mosquito sprayer plane down at McDuffie Coal Terminal. The terminal is on Ezra Trice Boulevard in Mobile.
A crane operator said he was on a crane when he saw the plane fly over. “Sounded like he was running out of gas, me and the other operator heard it sputtering,” Burke Armistead told FOX10 News.
The Alabama State Port Authority sent FOX10 News this aerial photo of where the crash happened, field between the coal terminal and the container terminal with the two big blue cranes
“He got right there beside the container yard and started dropping down real fast,” Armistead continued. “Then, look like when he hit he just turned to the left real hard, big pile of dust came up. It never exploded or nothing. Then we called 911.
Armistead said it looked like the pilot was trying to land.
Steve Huffman with Mobile Fire Rescue said the pilot was walking around when officials arrived on scene. He was taken to USA Medical Center for non-life threatening injures.
“The aircraft is sitting upright obviously it looks like it nose dived or hit the ground or dirt but it’s sitting upright on an open filed. No buildings, no people so if you’re going to crash this was the way to do it,” Huffman said.
He said the plane was carrying 50 gallons of pesticide.
The Mobile County Health Department said the pilot was flying a planned mission, a mosquito control spray, in the area of Battleship Memorial Parkway, prior to a July Fourth celebration Friday evening.
“We pray for the pilot’s speedy recovery,” said Dr. Bernard Eichold, Health Officer for the Mobile County Health Department. “We’re also grateful no one on the ground was injured.”
Officials with the Alabama State Port Authority say the pilot was conscious and transported to USA Medical Center.
The plane is a Cessna 336 (push-pull), a twin-engine fixed wing aircraft with non-retractable gear. It was acquired from the military by the health agency to provide mosquito control in areas such as salt marshes that can’t be reached by trucks. An investigation will be conducted by the FAA and NTSB.
Story and Videos: http://fox10tv.com
MOBILE, Alabama -- A Cessna 336 crashed in an open field near McDuffie Coal Terminal late Wednesday, sending a male Mobile County Health Department pilot to a local hospital.
According to the Mobile County Health Department, the pilot was flying a planned mosquito control spray mission in the area of Battleship Memorial Parkway when the plane crash landed shortly before 7 p.m.
The plane did not catch fire, but the pilot, who appeared to be alert, was taken to the University of South Alabama Medical Center to be treated for any injuries.
"We pray for the pilot's speedy recovery," said Dr. Bernard Eichold, Health Officer for the Mobile County Health Department. "We're also grateful no one on the ground was injured."
The twin-engine plane came to a stop on property owned by the Alabama State Port Authority on McDuffie Island, just south of the container terminal on the westside of the Mobile River, Port Authority officials said.
14 CFR Public Use
Accident occurred Thursday, July 03, 2014 in Mobile, AL
Probable Cause Approval Date: 04/27/2015
Aircraft: CESSNA 336, registration: N3804U
Injuries: 1 Serious.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this public aircraft accident report.
The pilot reported that he was performing mosquito control spraying operations at 100 ft above ground level (agl) when the rear engine began to sputter and lose power. He switched to the auxiliary fuel tank; however, this did not remedy the situation. He then climbed the airplane to 500 ft agl and continued to troubleshoot the problem by again switching fuel tanks and turning the electric boost pumps on. Shortly thereafter, the front engine began to lose power. Unable to regain full power on both engines, the pilot chose to perform a forced landing in an open field. The airplane touched down on soft soil and stopped abruptly, which resulted in extensive damage to the airplane. Both fuel selectors were found in the right main fuel tank positions. An examination of the fuel system revealed that the main fuel tanks contained only residual fuel and that the auxiliary tanks contained an adequate amount of fuel. Examination of the fuel lines revealed that both supply lines from the gascolators to the engine-driven fuel pumps were contaminated and obstructed with a granular, powder-like substance. The engines ran normally when operated in a test cell after the accident.
The auxiliary fuel tanks were designed for level, cruise flight only. The auxiliary tanks fed directly to the fuel selector and had no boost pumps available. It is likely that, due to the fuel system’s design, adequate fuel pressure could not be regained once the main tanks were depleted and the pilot switched to the auxiliary tanks. The contamination in the fuel lines might have further restricted fuel flow to the engines. The loss of engine power might have been prevented if the pilot had maintained an adequate amount of fuel in the main tanks.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot’s inadequate preflight fuel planning during which he did not ensure that there was adequate fuel in the main tanks for the flight, which resulted in a loss of engine power.
On July 3, 2014, about 1846 central daylight time, a Cessna 336, N3804U, force landed following a partial loss of engine power at Mobile, Alabama. The airline transport pilot was seriously injured, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was operated by the Mobile County Health Department. Day, visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local, public use, aerial application flight, and no flight plan was filed. The local flight originated at St. Elmo, Alabama (2R5) about 1829.
The pilot reported in a written statement to the NTSB that he was assigned to mosquito control spraying operations in the Mobile area. He departed 2R5 with about 48 gallons of fuel, including 36 gallons in the auxiliary tanks. While established on the southbound leg of a spray pattern, he transferred the engines, one at a time, to the full, 18 gallon auxiliary tanks. Shortly after, the engines began to "sputter" and would not maintain rpm. He aborted the spray run, "zoom climbed" to about 600 feet above the ground (agl), and turned to a heading of about 210, in the direction of Mobile Downtown Airport (BFM), about 4 to 5 nautical miles away. The available power was intermittent with rpm surges on both engines, and power available appeared insufficient to reach BFM. He set up for a forced landing on an island between a container terminal and a coal terminal. The airplane touched down on soft soil and came to a stop abruptly, resulting in extensive damage to the airplane.
An inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration responded to the accident site and examined the wreckage. Structural damage to the fuselage was confirmed. An examination of the fuel system revealed that the fuel selector handle for the front engine was in the right main tank position. The fuel selector handle for the rear engine was broken off from impact forces. It was later determined that the rear engine fuel selector was also in the right main tank position. The left and right main fuel tanks were empty of fuel and only residual fuel (about 2 ounces) was drained from the left and right main sump tanks. The tanks were not breached. The design of main fuel tanks allows them to completely drain into their respective sump tanks. The left and right auxiliary tanks contained sufficient fuel; however, it was not quantified.
The FAA inspector interviewed the pilot on July 9, 2014. He stated in the interview that he had been flying at 100 feet agl when the rear engine began "sputtering and coughing." He switched to the auxiliary fuel tank; however, this did not remedy the situation. He climbed the airplane to 500 feet agl and continued to troubleshoot by switching tanks and turning the boost pumps on. The front engine then began to lose power. He continued to troubleshoot the loss of power and realized that he could not maintain altitude and needed to perform an emergency landing short of the airport.
The engines were removed from the airframe and sent to the manufacturer's facility for examination. The engines were test run during the week of July 21 through 25, 2014. After repair of impact-related damage, the engines ran normally in a test cell. The test runs did not reveal any abnormalities that would have prevented normal operation and production of rated horsepower.
On January 16, 2015, the aircraft fuel system was re-examined under the supervision of the NTSB investigator-in-charge. The both engine fuel selectors were confirmed to be in the right main tank positions. Flaky, rust-colored debris was observed inside the right sump tank. The left sump tank was relatively clean. The left and right wing auxiliary fuel pumps, which operate the left and right main tank fuel sources only, were found to be functional when energized with a dc electrical source. The fuel lines from the fuel selector valves to the main and auxiliary tanks were unobstructed.
The rear engine fuel strainer was opened for examination. It contained about 1/8 teaspoon of light gray, powder-like debris in the bowl. The screen was unobstructed. The supply line from the strainer to the engine-driven fuel pump was obstructed; no air could be blown through it by mouth. The obstruction was removed with a clean piece of wire; about one teaspoon of light gray, powder-like debris was removed.
The front engine fuel strainer was opened for examination. The bottom of the bowl was corroded with a rust-like substance. The screen was unobstructed. The supply line from the strainer to the engine-driven fuel pump was obstructed; no air could be blown through it by mouth. The obstruction was removed with a clean piece of wire; about one half teaspoon of rust-colored, granular debris was removed.
According to the aircraft manufacturer, the auxiliary fuel tanks are intended for level, cruise flight. The auxiliary fuel tanks gravity feed directly to the fuel strainer; no boost pumps are available. The Cessna 336 pilot's operating handbook (POH) states that, in the pre-flight exterior inspection and the before landing checklist, the main tanks are to be selected. Also, the POH states that, in the event of an engine out situation during flight, the main tanks are to be selected if the auxiliary tanks are in use.
http://registry.faa.gov/N3804U
NTSB Identification: ERA14TA326
14 CFR Public Use
Accident occurred Thursday, July 03, 2014 in Mobile, AL
Aircraft: CESSNA 336, registration: N3804U
Injuries: 1 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this public aircraft accident report.
On July 3, 2014, about 1946 central daylight time, a Cessna 336, N3804U, force landed following a partial loss of engine power at Mobile, Alabama. The airline transport pilot was seriously injured, and the airplane was substantially damaged. The airplane was operated by the Mobile County Health Department. Day, visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local, public use, aerial application flight, and no flight plan was filed. The local flight originated at St. Elmo, Alabama (2R5) at an undetermined time.
According to the pilot, he was assigned to mosquito control spraying operations in the Mobile area. While flying at 100 feet above the ground, a loss of engine power was observed on both engines. He initiated a climb and assessed the situation. He was unable to maintain altitude and could not recover full engine power, so he force landed the airplane in a nearby field. The nose landing gear collapsed in the soft soil and the airplane came to a stop.
An inspector with the Federal Aviation Administration responded to the accident site and examined the wreckage. Structural damage to the fuselage was confirmed. The engines were removed and will be examined at a later date at the manufacturer's facilities under the direction of the NTSB.
Mobile-Fire Rescue officials said they responded to mosquito sprayer plane down at McDuffie Coal Terminal. The terminal is on Ezra Trice Boulevard in Mobile.
A crane operator said he was on a crane when he saw the plane fly over. “Sounded like he was running out of gas, me and the other operator heard it sputtering,” Burke Armistead told FOX10 News.
The Alabama State Port Authority sent FOX10 News this aerial photo of where the crash happened, field between the coal terminal and the container terminal with the two big blue cranes
“He got right there beside the container yard and started dropping down real fast,” Armistead continued. “Then, look like when he hit he just turned to the left real hard, big pile of dust came up. It never exploded or nothing. Then we called 911.
Armistead said it looked like the pilot was trying to land.
Steve Huffman with Mobile Fire Rescue said the pilot was walking around when officials arrived on scene. He was taken to USA Medical Center for non-life threatening injures.
“The aircraft is sitting upright obviously it looks like it nose dived or hit the ground or dirt but it’s sitting upright on an open filed. No buildings, no people so if you’re going to crash this was the way to do it,” Huffman said.
He said the plane was carrying 50 gallons of pesticide.
The Mobile County Health Department said the pilot was flying a planned mission, a mosquito control spray, in the area of Battleship Memorial Parkway, prior to a July Fourth celebration Friday evening.
“We pray for the pilot’s speedy recovery,” said Dr. Bernard Eichold, Health Officer for the Mobile County Health Department. “We’re also grateful no one on the ground was injured.”
Officials with the Alabama State Port Authority say the pilot was conscious and transported to USA Medical Center.
The plane is a Cessna 336 (push-pull), a twin-engine fixed wing aircraft with non-retractable gear. It was acquired from the military by the health agency to provide mosquito control in areas such as salt marshes that can’t be reached by trucks. An investigation will be conducted by the FAA and NTSB.
Story and Videos: http://fox10tv.com
MOBILE, Alabama -- A Cessna 336 crashed in an open field near McDuffie Coal Terminal late Wednesday, sending a male Mobile County Health Department pilot to a local hospital.
According to the Mobile County Health Department, the pilot was flying a planned mosquito control spray mission in the area of Battleship Memorial Parkway when the plane crash landed shortly before 7 p.m.
The plane did not catch fire, but the pilot, who appeared to be alert, was taken to the University of South Alabama Medical Center to be treated for any injuries.
"We pray for the pilot's speedy recovery," said Dr. Bernard Eichold, Health Officer for the Mobile County Health Department. "We're also grateful no one on the ground was injured."
The twin-engine plane came to a stop on property owned by the Alabama State Port Authority on McDuffie Island, just south of the container terminal on the westside of the Mobile River, Port Authority officials said.
‘Spares’ plane once transported Eisenhower
The YouTube story about the very first Air Force One being unknowingly purchased by Greybull’s favorite and most notable pilot, Mel Christler, gets more interesting with information included in an Internet article on Christler Flying Service.
According to Christler he got a call in 1980 from Robert Mikesh, a curator at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum, asking him if he was aware that his “spares” airplane, one of five he had purchased in 1970 and was now stored in Tucson, Ariz., was Columbine II, Dwight Eisenhower’s first presidential Constellation.
By this time, however, the airplane’s most useful parts had been donated to its working sisters.
Mel felt terrible about what had happened to the historic aircraft and set out to remedy the situation.
In 1985 Christler and his son, Lockie, attended the Globe Air auction in Mesa and bid $5,000 for Columbine II’s sistership. The plan was to ferry the sister ship to Ryan Field in Tucson and use its parts to restore Columbine II.
In 1989 the restoration of Columbine II began. It was completed in April 1990 and toured the United State in 1990 and 1991.
Christler and his partner Harry Oliver, integral to the restoration, thought the perfect home for the aircraft was the Smithsonian’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles Airport, but little interest was expressed by the museum.
A note of interest was that the “sistership” purchased by Christler for the restoration was originally named “Dewdrop” and was to be presidential-hopeful Dewey’s presidential airplane. When Harry Truman won the 1948 election he chose a DC-/VC-118 as his airplane. The name Dewdrop was removed from the “Connie,” and it was assigned to the USAF’s VIP squadron at National Airport in Washington, D.C. It was scrapped at Ryan Field in January 2002.
Read more here: http://www.greybullstandard.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
According to Christler he got a call in 1980 from Robert Mikesh, a curator at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum, asking him if he was aware that his “spares” airplane, one of five he had purchased in 1970 and was now stored in Tucson, Ariz., was Columbine II, Dwight Eisenhower’s first presidential Constellation.
By this time, however, the airplane’s most useful parts had been donated to its working sisters.
Mel felt terrible about what had happened to the historic aircraft and set out to remedy the situation.
In 1985 Christler and his son, Lockie, attended the Globe Air auction in Mesa and bid $5,000 for Columbine II’s sistership. The plan was to ferry the sister ship to Ryan Field in Tucson and use its parts to restore Columbine II.
In 1989 the restoration of Columbine II began. It was completed in April 1990 and toured the United State in 1990 and 1991.
Christler and his partner Harry Oliver, integral to the restoration, thought the perfect home for the aircraft was the Smithsonian’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles Airport, but little interest was expressed by the museum.
A note of interest was that the “sistership” purchased by Christler for the restoration was originally named “Dewdrop” and was to be presidential-hopeful Dewey’s presidential airplane. When Harry Truman won the 1948 election he chose a DC-/VC-118 as his airplane. The name Dewdrop was removed from the “Connie,” and it was assigned to the USAF’s VIP squadron at National Airport in Washington, D.C. It was scrapped at Ryan Field in January 2002.
Read more here: http://www.greybullstandard.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
"Michigan State Police have a very sophisticated helicopter" - Saginaw County Sheriff William Federspiel
Saginaw sheriff to seek Michigan State Police help to track pack of dangerous dogs
SAGINAW, MI — Saginaw County Sheriff William Federspiel plans to ask the Michigan State Police for help in tracking a pack of stray dogs that have been blamed for the death of a family's pet in a southwest neighborhood.
The pack attacked and killed a domesticated Labrador retriever. A witness to the attack, Robert Young, said he heard his own dogs give "a crazy kinda bark," and that prompted him to go outside, where he witnessed five dogs attacking his neighbor's dog.
Young then chased the pack away with his Jeep.
The attack took place in a neighborhood where South Michigan meets West Michigan, an area that was home to the Saginaw Malleable Iron Plant before the structure was razed in 2010.
The dogs also were spotted in the area of Stanley, Germania Platz and near Green Point Nature Center.
Wednesday, the Sheriff's Posse, deputies and an airplane converged upon the Green Point Nature Center, covering several miles while trying to find the pack. The dogs were not found, and as of Thursday, July 3, Federspiel said all eight bait traps set within two miles of the most-recent sighting were empty.
Saginaw County Controller Robert Belleman has asked the sheriff about the use of thermal imaging technology, which the department does not have but MSP does.
"Michigan State Police have a very sophisticated helicopter," Federspiel said. "Mr. Belleman was asking if we had any forward looking infrared. It detects the heat of an individual — usually for humans. His idea was do we have forward looking infrared so that we can track these animals at night."
Federspiel said he plans to speak with MSP officials soon.
"If they say yes, they could track a dog or a pack of dogs," Federspiel said.
'Why we're putting so much after this'
Federspiel said his only concern is protecting the public.
"The person who owned the 72-pound Labrador retriever told us that a smaller pack than 12, actually four or five dogs, killed his dog and ate it right in front of him," Federspiel said. "A 72-pound dog could represent a child that's playing in the yard. School is out.
"For those who wonder why we're putting so much after this, it is a huge public safety concern. The motive of these dogs is to eat, and to kill whatever they think they can, which could be a child, which could be an elderly person."
Federspiel went on to say he knows people who have been attacked by only one dog and they are "lucky to be alive."
"I'd have my posse out today if I knew where they were in a general vicinity," he said. "But we don't yet. Once we know, we will reactivate the entire force and bring everything we have to take these dogs out. We are just playing a waiting game with them."
Belleman encourages residents to beware of their surroundings and notify authorities if they think they see suspicious dogs.
"Residents may only see two or three of them, where the others may be on the outer perimeter, but you may not see all seven or twelve together," Belleman said. "So even if you see multiple dogs, even in a smaller quantity, notify 911. Even if you have one or two out without a leash, call."
Story, Video, Photo Gallery and Comments: http://www.mlive.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
SAGINAW, MI — Saginaw County Sheriff William Federspiel plans to ask the Michigan State Police for help in tracking a pack of stray dogs that have been blamed for the death of a family's pet in a southwest neighborhood.
The pack attacked and killed a domesticated Labrador retriever. A witness to the attack, Robert Young, said he heard his own dogs give "a crazy kinda bark," and that prompted him to go outside, where he witnessed five dogs attacking his neighbor's dog.
Young then chased the pack away with his Jeep.
The attack took place in a neighborhood where South Michigan meets West Michigan, an area that was home to the Saginaw Malleable Iron Plant before the structure was razed in 2010.
The dogs also were spotted in the area of Stanley, Germania Platz and near Green Point Nature Center.
Wednesday, the Sheriff's Posse, deputies and an airplane converged upon the Green Point Nature Center, covering several miles while trying to find the pack. The dogs were not found, and as of Thursday, July 3, Federspiel said all eight bait traps set within two miles of the most-recent sighting were empty.
Saginaw County Controller Robert Belleman has asked the sheriff about the use of thermal imaging technology, which the department does not have but MSP does.
"Michigan State Police have a very sophisticated helicopter," Federspiel said. "Mr. Belleman was asking if we had any forward looking infrared. It detects the heat of an individual — usually for humans. His idea was do we have forward looking infrared so that we can track these animals at night."
Federspiel said he plans to speak with MSP officials soon.
"If they say yes, they could track a dog or a pack of dogs," Federspiel said.
'Why we're putting so much after this'
Federspiel said his only concern is protecting the public.
"The person who owned the 72-pound Labrador retriever told us that a smaller pack than 12, actually four or five dogs, killed his dog and ate it right in front of him," Federspiel said. "A 72-pound dog could represent a child that's playing in the yard. School is out.
"For those who wonder why we're putting so much after this, it is a huge public safety concern. The motive of these dogs is to eat, and to kill whatever they think they can, which could be a child, which could be an elderly person."
Federspiel went on to say he knows people who have been attacked by only one dog and they are "lucky to be alive."
"I'd have my posse out today if I knew where they were in a general vicinity," he said. "But we don't yet. Once we know, we will reactivate the entire force and bring everything we have to take these dogs out. We are just playing a waiting game with them."
Belleman encourages residents to beware of their surroundings and notify authorities if they think they see suspicious dogs.
"Residents may only see two or three of them, where the others may be on the outer perimeter, but you may not see all seven or twelve together," Belleman said. "So even if you see multiple dogs, even in a smaller quantity, notify 911. Even if you have one or two out without a leash, call."
Story, Video, Photo Gallery and Comments: http://www.mlive.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
Hidden amid the foliage and scrap metal, abandoned fleet of WWII fighter planes lie rotting in the backwoods of Ohio
With their livery almost obscured by rust and moss these abandoned metal skeletons are all that remains from a fleet of World War Two fighter planes.
The aircraft lie rotting at an abandoned graveyard in Ohio, America, amongst overgrown foliage and scrap metal.
They were lovingly collected by scrapyard worker Walter Soplata in his back garden in Newbury, Ohio, from the late 1940s, after he launched a one-man mission to save them from being dismantled and discarded.
He began to buy up the former war planes in a bid to give them a more fitting final resting place.
After Mr Soplata's death in 2010 the aviation graveyard was kept a secret by relatives fearing scrappers.
The haunting images were captured by 24-year-old photographer, Jonny Joo, who has made a name for himself by venturing into long-abandoned places.
Mr Joo, from Ohio, said: 'I was driving around looking for derelict buildings to photograph and I stumbled across a big open space on the map so I decided to check it out.
'There ended up being someone at the property and he gave me a bit of history and let me take photographs.'
Read more and photo gallery: http://www.dailymail.co.uk
The aircraft lie rotting at an abandoned graveyard in Ohio, America, amongst overgrown foliage and scrap metal.
They were lovingly collected by scrapyard worker Walter Soplata in his back garden in Newbury, Ohio, from the late 1940s, after he launched a one-man mission to save them from being dismantled and discarded.
He began to buy up the former war planes in a bid to give them a more fitting final resting place.
After Mr Soplata's death in 2010 the aviation graveyard was kept a secret by relatives fearing scrappers.
The haunting images were captured by 24-year-old photographer, Jonny Joo, who has made a name for himself by venturing into long-abandoned places.
Mr Joo, from Ohio, said: 'I was driving around looking for derelict buildings to photograph and I stumbled across a big open space on the map so I decided to check it out.
'There ended up being someone at the property and he gave me a bit of history and let me take photographs.'
Read more and photo gallery: http://www.dailymail.co.uk
Cessna 185: Incident occurred in Port Vila, Vanuatu
A Cessna 185 (C185) aircraft belonging to Safari Airline in Port Vila crashed last Saturday morning on the grassland at the end of Baurfield International Airport cattle plantation about 700 meters away from the Bauerfield Airport.
All four passengers and the pilot were safe and walked out of the aircraft without injuries, according to the pilot and a pro-medics insider in Port Vila.
The pilot, Captain Matt Erceg from Australia who has been in Vanuatu for 20 years, confirmed the incident to the Daily Post yesterday morning.
“I took off from the Bauerfield International Airport bound for Pentecost. About 2-3 minutes after, the engine suddenly stopped. I was about 700 meters away from the airport and had to make a crash landing, which I did in the grassland just short of the trees and the bush,” he said.
“At this stage we still don’t know how the engine stopped and are looking into it,” said Matt Ecerg who has been hailed by close friends as one of the most highly experienced pilots around who has also flown aircraft around the world.
“Yes, I can confirm that I guided the aircraft down to a crash landing. The four passengers and I were safe and walked out of the aircraft safe and without injuries,” said Matt Ecerg.
I have flown for over 38 years with over 20,000 hours of flight records behind me and have been here in Vanuatu for 20 years now,” the pilot hailed as one of the most highly experienced pilots in Vanuatu told the Daily Post over the phone yesterday morning.
Daily Post arrived at the scene where the aircraft was about an hour after the Cesner 185 crash landed, but the pilot and the passengers had already left. Initial information that reached the Daily Post indicated that the aircraft went down around the Melek Tree area close to the Abbattoir.
When Daily Post was on the way there, further information was received that the plane crash landed in the Northward direction at the end of the Bauerfield Airport.
The Daily Post eventually got to the scene after a journey across the cattle plantations and almost 50 minute walk to where the aircraft crash landed.
The photo taken shows the Cessna 185 on the grassland at the edge of the tress and bushes as described by the pilot, Matt Erceg.
One of the close friend of Matt Ecerg commented to the Daily Post that: “Matt is the best and one of the most experienced pilots in this country and who has also flown around the world. It’s amazing how he guided the aircraft into a crash landing when the engine actually stopped in mid air.”
All four passengers and the pilot, Matt Ecerg walked out of the crashed Cessna 185 safe and without injuries.
Daily Post tried early yesterday to get comments from Civil Aviation Director on the incident, Joseph Niel, but he declined to give any comment.
All four passengers and the pilot were safe and walked out of the aircraft without injuries, according to the pilot and a pro-medics insider in Port Vila.
The pilot, Captain Matt Erceg from Australia who has been in Vanuatu for 20 years, confirmed the incident to the Daily Post yesterday morning.
“I took off from the Bauerfield International Airport bound for Pentecost. About 2-3 minutes after, the engine suddenly stopped. I was about 700 meters away from the airport and had to make a crash landing, which I did in the grassland just short of the trees and the bush,” he said.
“At this stage we still don’t know how the engine stopped and are looking into it,” said Matt Ecerg who has been hailed by close friends as one of the most highly experienced pilots around who has also flown aircraft around the world.
“Yes, I can confirm that I guided the aircraft down to a crash landing. The four passengers and I were safe and walked out of the aircraft safe and without injuries,” said Matt Ecerg.
I have flown for over 38 years with over 20,000 hours of flight records behind me and have been here in Vanuatu for 20 years now,” the pilot hailed as one of the most highly experienced pilots in Vanuatu told the Daily Post over the phone yesterday morning.
Daily Post arrived at the scene where the aircraft was about an hour after the Cesner 185 crash landed, but the pilot and the passengers had already left. Initial information that reached the Daily Post indicated that the aircraft went down around the Melek Tree area close to the Abbattoir.
When Daily Post was on the way there, further information was received that the plane crash landed in the Northward direction at the end of the Bauerfield Airport.
The Daily Post eventually got to the scene after a journey across the cattle plantations and almost 50 minute walk to where the aircraft crash landed.
The photo taken shows the Cessna 185 on the grassland at the edge of the tress and bushes as described by the pilot, Matt Erceg.
One of the close friend of Matt Ecerg commented to the Daily Post that: “Matt is the best and one of the most experienced pilots in this country and who has also flown around the world. It’s amazing how he guided the aircraft into a crash landing when the engine actually stopped in mid air.”
All four passengers and the pilot, Matt Ecerg walked out of the crashed Cessna 185 safe and without injuries.
Daily Post tried early yesterday to get comments from Civil Aviation Director on the incident, Joseph Niel, but he declined to give any comment.
Letter: Information on flight completely wrong
Opinion/Letters
July 3, 2014 5:02 PM
I noticed that the Enquirer used articles and video that were part of the USA Today series “Unfit for Flight.”
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on June 20 asked USA Today to correct the misrepresentation of general aviation fatality statistics in this series. USA Today reported a “massive and growing death toll,” and “unchecked carnage,” and stated that nearly 45,000 people have been killed in general aviation accidents since the 1960s.
However, the stories did not report that more than half of those deaths happened more than 30 years ago, and that general aviation fatalities have actually declined by 75 percent since 1973. USA Today was aware of this decline. In fact, reporter Thomas Frank provided us with the NTSB chart that shows a fairly steady drop from 744 fatalities in 1993 to 432 in 2012.
And our own statistics, based on NTSB reports, show that 2013 will record the lowest number of fatalities — 395 — in decades. You can check the source for these numbers at ntsb.gov/data/aviation_stats. Yet Frank did not mention these numbers in his piece — perhaps because they would have undermined its premise.
A chart that ran with the third part of the series also showed declines in both the accident and fatality rates, but the chart’s incorrect headline read: “General aviation crash rate remains steady.” This sloppy reporting has not only unfairly damaged general aviation’s reputation, but, by extension, the reputations of the 64 other Gannet papers that posted the articles and/or videos.
Steve Hedges
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Frederick, Maryland
Opinion: http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
July 3, 2014 5:02 PM
I noticed that the Enquirer used articles and video that were part of the USA Today series “Unfit for Flight.”
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association on June 20 asked USA Today to correct the misrepresentation of general aviation fatality statistics in this series. USA Today reported a “massive and growing death toll,” and “unchecked carnage,” and stated that nearly 45,000 people have been killed in general aviation accidents since the 1960s.
However, the stories did not report that more than half of those deaths happened more than 30 years ago, and that general aviation fatalities have actually declined by 75 percent since 1973. USA Today was aware of this decline. In fact, reporter Thomas Frank provided us with the NTSB chart that shows a fairly steady drop from 744 fatalities in 1993 to 432 in 2012.
And our own statistics, based on NTSB reports, show that 2013 will record the lowest number of fatalities — 395 — in decades. You can check the source for these numbers at ntsb.gov/data/aviation_stats. Yet Frank did not mention these numbers in his piece — perhaps because they would have undermined its premise.
A chart that ran with the third part of the series also showed declines in both the accident and fatality rates, but the chart’s incorrect headline read: “General aviation crash rate remains steady.” This sloppy reporting has not only unfairly damaged general aviation’s reputation, but, by extension, the reputations of the 64 other Gannet papers that posted the articles and/or videos.
Steve Hedges
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Frederick, Maryland
Opinion: http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
BMW Hoffman Airtrike, N190DH: Accident occurred July 01, 2014 in Payette, Idaho
NTSB Identification: WPR14LA275
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, June 30, 2014 in Payette, ID
Aircraft: HOFFMAN DAVID K HOFFMAN BMW AIRTRIKE, registration: N190DH
Injuries: 1 Minor.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On June 30, 2014, about 2032 mountain daylight time, an experimental amateur built BMW Hoffman Airtrike, N190DH, sustained substantial damage when it struck terrain during landing on runway 13 at Payette Municipal Airport (S75) Payette, Idaho. The airtrike was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. The student pilot, sole occupant of the airtrike, sustained minor injuries. The airtrike sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage during the accident sequence. The local personal flight departed S75 at an undetermined time. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed.
Witnesses located near the accident site reported observing that just prior to the landing, the airtrike's left wing dropped and struck the ground. Subsequently, the airtrike cartwheeled and came to rest inverted.
Post accident examination of the airtrike by a Federal Aviation Administration Inspector revealed that the wing assembly and fuselage were damaged.
AIRCRAFT ON LANDING CRASHED AT PAYETTE, ID
Flight Standards District Office: FAA Boise FSDO-11
David K. Hoffman, N190DH: http://registry.faa.gov/N190DH
PAYETTE -- Police in Payette have released photos of an ultralight plane crash from earlier this week.
The man who crashed is OK.
Payette Police, county deputies, and firefighters responded to the crash at around 8:30 p.m. Tuesday.
They found a 58-year-old man had crashed his ultralight near the airport and the Scotch Pines Golf Course.
Several people who were at the golf course witnessed the crash and went to help the pilot.
The pilot was taken to the hospital, but will be OK.
Police say the accident is being investigated by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Story and Photos: http://www.ktvb.com
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, June 30, 2014 in Payette, ID
Aircraft: HOFFMAN DAVID K HOFFMAN BMW AIRTRIKE, registration: N190DH
Injuries: 1 Minor.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On June 30, 2014, about 2032 mountain daylight time, an experimental amateur built BMW Hoffman Airtrike, N190DH, sustained substantial damage when it struck terrain during landing on runway 13 at Payette Municipal Airport (S75) Payette, Idaho. The airtrike was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. The student pilot, sole occupant of the airtrike, sustained minor injuries. The airtrike sustained substantial damage to the wings and fuselage during the accident sequence. The local personal flight departed S75 at an undetermined time. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed.
Witnesses located near the accident site reported observing that just prior to the landing, the airtrike's left wing dropped and struck the ground. Subsequently, the airtrike cartwheeled and came to rest inverted.
Post accident examination of the airtrike by a Federal Aviation Administration Inspector revealed that the wing assembly and fuselage were damaged.
AIRCRAFT ON LANDING CRASHED AT PAYETTE, ID
Flight Standards District Office: FAA Boise FSDO-11
David K. Hoffman, N190DH: http://registry.faa.gov/N190DH
PAYETTE -- Police in Payette have released photos of an ultralight plane crash from earlier this week.
The man who crashed is OK.
Payette Police, county deputies, and firefighters responded to the crash at around 8:30 p.m. Tuesday.
They found a 58-year-old man had crashed his ultralight near the airport and the Scotch Pines Golf Course.
Several people who were at the golf course witnessed the crash and went to help the pilot.
The pilot was taken to the hospital, but will be OK.
Police say the accident is being investigated by the Federal Aviation Administration.
Story and Photos: http://www.ktvb.com
Dayton, Tennessee: Local pilot receives prestigious Federal Aviation Administration award
The administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration recently awarded the Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award to Robinson Manufacturing Company Inc. Chief Pilot Richard Hash.
The award recognizes and honors those aviators who have contributed and maintained safe operations for 50 or more years of aeronautical experience as an aviator.
It is granted “in appreciation for your dedicated service, technical expertise, professionalism and many outstanding contributions to further the cause of aviation safety.”
Further, the award “acknowledges exemplary service, devotion to aviation safety, recognition by your peers, and the appreciation of countless pilots to whom you showed the way.”
Hash began his flying career in the U.S. Navy, soloing a Navy T-34A Trainer on March 5, 1964. Commissioned as an ensign in January 1964, he was promoted to lieutenant commander in July 1972.
While in the Navy, he obtained his civilian commercial pilots license with single, multiengine land aircraft and instrument rating endorsements. He holds a current flight instructor certificate, which he first qualified for in 1966 with Gold Seal endorsement.
He is also a ground instructor and has accumulated over 13,000 flight hours, including pilot in command time in over 47 aircraft, all accident and violation free.
As president of Executive Airways Inc. at McGhee Tyson Airport in Knoxville, Tenn., from 1968 to 1976, he and other company pilots flew air charter, air freight, air ambulance and gave flight instruction totaling over 20,000 hours, all accident and violation free.
He has trained many pilots, with dozens going on to fly for the airlines, corporations and the military. He has been chief pilot for Robinson Manufacturing Company Inc. in Dayton for 30 years and currently pilots their Cessna Conquest II twin-engine turboprop.
He has flight experience in the entire United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America and numerous Pacific countries.
Hash graduated from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1976 and maintains a law office in Maryville, Tenn. He practices in the field of family law, personal injury and in aviation law where he has testified as an expert witness in several aircraft accident cases and has represented airlines and pilots in FAA and National Transportation Safety Board Proceedings and in other litigation.
His passion is safe flying and helping aspiring pilots.
Story and Photo: http://www.rheaheraldnews.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
The award recognizes and honors those aviators who have contributed and maintained safe operations for 50 or more years of aeronautical experience as an aviator.
It is granted “in appreciation for your dedicated service, technical expertise, professionalism and many outstanding contributions to further the cause of aviation safety.”
Further, the award “acknowledges exemplary service, devotion to aviation safety, recognition by your peers, and the appreciation of countless pilots to whom you showed the way.”
Hash began his flying career in the U.S. Navy, soloing a Navy T-34A Trainer on March 5, 1964. Commissioned as an ensign in January 1964, he was promoted to lieutenant commander in July 1972.
While in the Navy, he obtained his civilian commercial pilots license with single, multiengine land aircraft and instrument rating endorsements. He holds a current flight instructor certificate, which he first qualified for in 1966 with Gold Seal endorsement.
He is also a ground instructor and has accumulated over 13,000 flight hours, including pilot in command time in over 47 aircraft, all accident and violation free.
As president of Executive Airways Inc. at McGhee Tyson Airport in Knoxville, Tenn., from 1968 to 1976, he and other company pilots flew air charter, air freight, air ambulance and gave flight instruction totaling over 20,000 hours, all accident and violation free.
He has trained many pilots, with dozens going on to fly for the airlines, corporations and the military. He has been chief pilot for Robinson Manufacturing Company Inc. in Dayton for 30 years and currently pilots their Cessna Conquest II twin-engine turboprop.
He has flight experience in the entire United States, Canada, Mexico, Central America and numerous Pacific countries.
Hash graduated from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1976 and maintains a law office in Maryville, Tenn. He practices in the field of family law, personal injury and in aviation law where he has testified as an expert witness in several aircraft accident cases and has represented airlines and pilots in FAA and National Transportation Safety Board Proceedings and in other litigation.
His passion is safe flying and helping aspiring pilots.
Story and Photo: http://www.rheaheraldnews.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
Is a corporate plane a status symbol or logistical lifesaver? Both, say local experts: Greenville, South Carolina
The use of private airplanes in business can offer a unique efficiency and productivity tool to companies looking for an advantage in speed and the ability to quickly move company personnel to specific locations.
And although a recent Wall Street Journal article reported that CEOs of nearly 150 companies enjoyed personal flights at their employers’ expense in 2013, for most companies, air travel provides company executives with the option to visit multiple destinations in a single day while serving as a cost-effective resource for high travel corporations, said Steve Wiley, vice president of aviation accounts at Special Services Corporation.
Of the top 100 companies in the Upstate, at least half of them utilize business airplanes, he said. “Here in this neighborhood, the Citation Series is a favorite because it has short field capabilities to get in and out of the smaller runways.”
Wiley said companies interested in purchasing an airplane for corporate use could find a business jet with ample time left on the motors for approximately $2 million.
The executive business airplane at this range will fly the entire East Coast and seat eight, he said. A standard crew for a typical business plane is two pilots.
Upper echelon companies with an extended budget can purchase a brand new Gulfstream 650 between $40 million and $60 million, Wiley said. Calculating the time put on the airplane and its expected utilization can equate to a reasonable bottom line for large corporations, he said. “When you put all of the factors in order, it can start to make sense.” Businesses without the resources or need for a company aircraft can charter a jet from operations throughout the region, although destination will greatly influence travel costs. Wiley said a day trip from Greenville to New York could cost a company between $10,000 and $12,000.
A similar trip made to a city like Charlotte may only cost $4,000, he said. Moving key people to different locations in a shorter amount of time is also an advantage of business aviation. By using less efficient means of travel such as commercial airlines or driving, Wiley said companies could lose several days of productivity from valued staff members.
The return on investment for companies that place their management teams in a six to eight-seat airplane for an hour can be significant, he said. “If you’re going to meet on Tuesday, you have to leave on Monday to make it on time, and if your meeting runs long, you could miss your flight and extend your time out of the office.”
Although the perception exists that only those with elite status have access to corporate jets, they can be more cost effective than commercial aviation for companies with a need to move senior executives to various locations quickly, said Dave Edwards, president and CEO of Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport.
For most, commercial aviation is a critical component of transportation around the country, he said. “Corporate jets have a very strong place in the business community when used appropriately, and I believe they are nothing more than a business tool to get the job done in the most efficient and effective manner.”
Well-managed aircraft fleets can add significant profitability to a company whose profile benefits from fast and efficient transportation, said Gerald Gaige, commercial pilot and certified flight instructor based at the Greenville Downtown Airport.
Not all companies have air needs, but the effectiveness of private air travel can make business operations possible that would otherwise not be, he said. “Adding air travel efficiencies to a company can improve the bottom line profit.”
Gaige said private jets are used for groups of employees to reduce the per-ticket cost.
A company’s cost analysis must consider a variety of value factors, including personnel time invested, increased business efficiency, convenience of scheduling and increased availability of locations, he said. The cost benefits of business aviation are often hidden from a numbers point of view, but they are obvious to the individuals involved, he added. Dan Hubbard, spokesperson for the National Business Aviation Association, said there are misperceptions about the use of business airplanes, which may lead corporate employees, boards of directors and shareholders to disapprove of them.
When companies make it clear that an airplane is a business tool, not an executive perk, there is a level of understanding that counters these misperceptions, he said. A company should articulate the need for a business airplane, “to justify its use and allow fewer people to do more things in less time.”
Story, Photos and Video: http://upstatebusinessjournal.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
And although a recent Wall Street Journal article reported that CEOs of nearly 150 companies enjoyed personal flights at their employers’ expense in 2013, for most companies, air travel provides company executives with the option to visit multiple destinations in a single day while serving as a cost-effective resource for high travel corporations, said Steve Wiley, vice president of aviation accounts at Special Services Corporation.
Of the top 100 companies in the Upstate, at least half of them utilize business airplanes, he said. “Here in this neighborhood, the Citation Series is a favorite because it has short field capabilities to get in and out of the smaller runways.”
Wiley said companies interested in purchasing an airplane for corporate use could find a business jet with ample time left on the motors for approximately $2 million.
The executive business airplane at this range will fly the entire East Coast and seat eight, he said. A standard crew for a typical business plane is two pilots.
Upper echelon companies with an extended budget can purchase a brand new Gulfstream 650 between $40 million and $60 million, Wiley said. Calculating the time put on the airplane and its expected utilization can equate to a reasonable bottom line for large corporations, he said. “When you put all of the factors in order, it can start to make sense.” Businesses without the resources or need for a company aircraft can charter a jet from operations throughout the region, although destination will greatly influence travel costs. Wiley said a day trip from Greenville to New York could cost a company between $10,000 and $12,000.
A similar trip made to a city like Charlotte may only cost $4,000, he said. Moving key people to different locations in a shorter amount of time is also an advantage of business aviation. By using less efficient means of travel such as commercial airlines or driving, Wiley said companies could lose several days of productivity from valued staff members.
The return on investment for companies that place their management teams in a six to eight-seat airplane for an hour can be significant, he said. “If you’re going to meet on Tuesday, you have to leave on Monday to make it on time, and if your meeting runs long, you could miss your flight and extend your time out of the office.”
Although the perception exists that only those with elite status have access to corporate jets, they can be more cost effective than commercial aviation for companies with a need to move senior executives to various locations quickly, said Dave Edwards, president and CEO of Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport.
For most, commercial aviation is a critical component of transportation around the country, he said. “Corporate jets have a very strong place in the business community when used appropriately, and I believe they are nothing more than a business tool to get the job done in the most efficient and effective manner.”
Well-managed aircraft fleets can add significant profitability to a company whose profile benefits from fast and efficient transportation, said Gerald Gaige, commercial pilot and certified flight instructor based at the Greenville Downtown Airport.
Not all companies have air needs, but the effectiveness of private air travel can make business operations possible that would otherwise not be, he said. “Adding air travel efficiencies to a company can improve the bottom line profit.”
Gaige said private jets are used for groups of employees to reduce the per-ticket cost.
A company’s cost analysis must consider a variety of value factors, including personnel time invested, increased business efficiency, convenience of scheduling and increased availability of locations, he said. The cost benefits of business aviation are often hidden from a numbers point of view, but they are obvious to the individuals involved, he added. Dan Hubbard, spokesperson for the National Business Aviation Association, said there are misperceptions about the use of business airplanes, which may lead corporate employees, boards of directors and shareholders to disapprove of them.
When companies make it clear that an airplane is a business tool, not an executive perk, there is a level of understanding that counters these misperceptions, he said. A company should articulate the need for a business airplane, “to justify its use and allow fewer people to do more things in less time.”
Story, Photos and Video: http://upstatebusinessjournal.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority awards runway design project to New York City-based Parsons Brinckerhoff: Four agencies applied for the project
The Metropolitan Topeka Airport Authority on Thursday awarded the design and oversight of a substantial runway reconstruction project to New York City-based Parsons Brinckerhoff.
As such, the international firm, which has offices in Wichita and Lenexa, will design and oversee construction of the reconstruction of one of Topeka Regional Airport’s primary runways — the 12,800-foot-long 13-31.
Funding for the project will be split between the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Guard Bureau and the MTAA.
The FAA has agreed to fund just 7,300 feet of the 12,800-foot runway — a project that is estimated to cost roughly $20 million. The MTAA’s local match on that comes to $1.6 million to $2 million, for which the MTAA already has set aside $1.5 million. The MTAA has estimated its mill levy will be higher than usual through at least 2016 in an effort to pay for the reconstruction.
The National Guard Bureau will pay to reconstruct the remaining 5,500 feet, but as of yet hasn’t provided a cost estimate, said president Eric Johnson.
Parsons Brinckerhoff will be in charge of designing and overseeing the entire project. Johnson didn’t provide an idea of an appropriate or usual percentage of the total cost that goes to engineering services, but even 10 percent of just the FAA project would be $2 million.
The MTAA received four submissions for its solicitation of qualifications, also including Burns and McDonnell, Jviation and Professional Engineering Consultants. Cost estimates weren’t included in the submissions.
The MTAA approved Johnson’s recommendation.
“I think any one of those four would be qualified to oversee the runway reconstruction project,” Johnson said. “It comes down to which one is best suited for this particular project at Forbes.”
Johnson then threw his recommendation behind the international firm, saying he had been “extremely satisfied” with their work on an earlier runway for the MTAA.
With Thursday’s approval, the firm and the MTAA have less than one week to establish a cost estimate, run it by another firm for its accuracy — known as an independent fee estimate — and submit the information to the FAA to meet the grant deadline of July 11.
“We’ll be hustling,” Johnson said.
Story, Photo and Comments: http://cjonline.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
As such, the international firm, which has offices in Wichita and Lenexa, will design and oversee construction of the reconstruction of one of Topeka Regional Airport’s primary runways — the 12,800-foot-long 13-31.
Funding for the project will be split between the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Guard Bureau and the MTAA.
The FAA has agreed to fund just 7,300 feet of the 12,800-foot runway — a project that is estimated to cost roughly $20 million. The MTAA’s local match on that comes to $1.6 million to $2 million, for which the MTAA already has set aside $1.5 million. The MTAA has estimated its mill levy will be higher than usual through at least 2016 in an effort to pay for the reconstruction.
The National Guard Bureau will pay to reconstruct the remaining 5,500 feet, but as of yet hasn’t provided a cost estimate, said president Eric Johnson.
Parsons Brinckerhoff will be in charge of designing and overseeing the entire project. Johnson didn’t provide an idea of an appropriate or usual percentage of the total cost that goes to engineering services, but even 10 percent of just the FAA project would be $2 million.
The MTAA received four submissions for its solicitation of qualifications, also including Burns and McDonnell, Jviation and Professional Engineering Consultants. Cost estimates weren’t included in the submissions.
The MTAA approved Johnson’s recommendation.
“I think any one of those four would be qualified to oversee the runway reconstruction project,” Johnson said. “It comes down to which one is best suited for this particular project at Forbes.”
Johnson then threw his recommendation behind the international firm, saying he had been “extremely satisfied” with their work on an earlier runway for the MTAA.
With Thursday’s approval, the firm and the MTAA have less than one week to establish a cost estimate, run it by another firm for its accuracy — known as an independent fee estimate — and submit the information to the FAA to meet the grant deadline of July 11.
“We’ll be hustling,” Johnson said.
Story, Photo and Comments: http://cjonline.com
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
Drone near-miss at Vancouver International Airport highlights Canada-wide problem: Royal Canadian Mounted Police
RICHMOND, B.C. -- RCMP and Transport Canada are conducting a joint investigation into a near-miss between a drone and an aircraft taking off from Vancouver's airport earlier this week.
The pilot of a K.D. Air Corporation plane reported the incident with the unmanned, remote-controlled aerial vehicle on Canada Day.
Sgt. Cam Kowalski said the remote-controlled devices, also known as UAVs, are becoming increasingly common because they're now so affordable and available online or in hobby shops.
"It's a problem across Canada," he said Thursday.
Kowalski said that in the most recent case, the drone measured about half-a-metre square and was likely being navigated by someone close to the site.
But he said lasers pointed at police helicopters and other aircraft are equally troubling and there are few regulations prohibiting the use of either device in such situations.
Kowalski is leading an aviation safety committee that's part of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to lobby the federal government to enact legislation around the use of lasers.
"We're looking at getting legislation that would not allow personal possession of these devices over a certain power," he said.
The beam from the lasers can be blinding for pilots and creates hazardous flying conditions.
"I equate it to stupidity," Kowalski said.
Penalties include fines and forfeiture of the laser.
In February, three men in Edmonton were each fined $3,000 after admitting they pointed a green laser at the Edmonton police Air-1 helicopter. They all pleaded guilty to one count of creating a hazard to aviation under the federal Aeronautics Act.
In March, police in Winnipeg said their helicopter had been targeted by laser beams 21 times since it took flight two years earlier.
Their report said eight people were arrested but no one had been caught in four out of five cases last year.
In February 2013, a 30-year-old Langley, B.C., man was handed a five-month conditional sentence with a nightly curfew, one year on probation and a ban on possessing lasers for shining a green laser at an RCMP helicopter.
Alexander Schiller was charged with mischief and violating the Canadian Aeronautics Act.
The FBI unveiled a public safety campaign in June, offering $10,000 for information leading to the arrest of anyone who threatens aircraft with a laser.
The agency is airing its message before movies in theatres in several cities over the next three months.
"Here's a pointer," the public service announcement reads. "Aiming a laser at an aircraft is a federal crime."
Story and Video: http://bc.ctvnews.ca
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
The pilot of a K.D. Air Corporation plane reported the incident with the unmanned, remote-controlled aerial vehicle on Canada Day.
Sgt. Cam Kowalski said the remote-controlled devices, also known as UAVs, are becoming increasingly common because they're now so affordable and available online or in hobby shops.
"It's a problem across Canada," he said Thursday.
Kowalski said that in the most recent case, the drone measured about half-a-metre square and was likely being navigated by someone close to the site.
But he said lasers pointed at police helicopters and other aircraft are equally troubling and there are few regulations prohibiting the use of either device in such situations.
Kowalski is leading an aviation safety committee that's part of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police to lobby the federal government to enact legislation around the use of lasers.
"We're looking at getting legislation that would not allow personal possession of these devices over a certain power," he said.
The beam from the lasers can be blinding for pilots and creates hazardous flying conditions.
"I equate it to stupidity," Kowalski said.
Penalties include fines and forfeiture of the laser.
In February, three men in Edmonton were each fined $3,000 after admitting they pointed a green laser at the Edmonton police Air-1 helicopter. They all pleaded guilty to one count of creating a hazard to aviation under the federal Aeronautics Act.
In March, police in Winnipeg said their helicopter had been targeted by laser beams 21 times since it took flight two years earlier.
Their report said eight people were arrested but no one had been caught in four out of five cases last year.
In February 2013, a 30-year-old Langley, B.C., man was handed a five-month conditional sentence with a nightly curfew, one year on probation and a ban on possessing lasers for shining a green laser at an RCMP helicopter.
Alexander Schiller was charged with mischief and violating the Canadian Aeronautics Act.
The FBI unveiled a public safety campaign in June, offering $10,000 for information leading to the arrest of anyone who threatens aircraft with a laser.
The agency is airing its message before movies in theatres in several cities over the next three months.
"Here's a pointer," the public service announcement reads. "Aiming a laser at an aircraft is a federal crime."
Story and Video: http://bc.ctvnews.ca
Have more to add? Aviation news tip? Tell us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
